W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Publishing a Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL on June 30

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:11:25 +1200
To: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110621041125.GA6970@wok.mcc.id.au>
Arthur Barstow:
> * June 20 - start a 1-week Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD

That is today, and there are still some open bugs on the spec.  Here is
a status update.

Features I have deferred until a second version/revision of the
specification I’ve marked as Severity:Enhancement in Bugzilla:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=comp%3Awebidl+sev%3Aenh

For the remaining open bugs:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=comp%3Awebidl+-sev%3Aenh

* Bug 8241 - Named properties on Window
  This was resolved, but reopened.  Discussion is ongoing, and this
  might well need further changes to the spec.

* Bug 10623 - Simplify Web IDL exceptions
  This was resolved, and also reopened.  It seems to need further
  discussion on whether everyone agrees this is the desired way forward
  for DOMExceptions across web platform specifications.

* Bug 11267 - Add a [NonConfigurable] extended attribute
  This may or may not be worth addressing in Web IDL itself.  If is, it
  shouldn’t be much work.  Discussion is ongoing.

* Bug 12320 - ECMAScript binding forbids using ECMAScript to implement
              many interfaces
  This hasn’t been started.  It isn’t a major change in requirements,
  more of an editorial change.  But it still needs a bit of thought on
  my part.

* Bug 12458 - Interface objects should be Functions
  This has open discussion on the bug, but not clear resolution yet.
  I’ve asked for data around the compatibility constraints so we can
  decide how to move forward.

* Bug 12635 - calling Functions corresponding to IDL
              operations/attributes on unexpected objects should throw
  This is pretty much done.  It is dependent on bug 12320.

* Bug 12798 - Default to [TreatNullAs=EmptyString]
  This is a high profile issue, and it has had a bunch of discussion
  since I resolved the bug.  I reverted the change due to that
  discussion, although there have been subsequent calls for the change
  to be reapplied.  The bug awaits some concrete data on site breakage
  that would need the patch to be reapplied to resolve.

* Bug 12845 - Disallow shaing attributes
  There appear to be some philisophical differences between commentors                                                                                                                                                        
  in the bug about whether shadowing should be allowed or not at all.                                                                                                                                                         
  The smaller change is to continue allowing it, since at least HTML                                                                                                                                                          
  does shadow some attributes.  I’d rather leave this bug open for a                                                                                                                                                          
  little longer.  If there aren’t any further arguments, I’d say to
  close this bug without disallowing shadowing, as the simpler way
  forward.                                                                                                                                                         

* Bug 12979 - Set [[Enumerable]] in §4.6.3 and §4.6.4
  This is dependent on resolving the issue raised in this thread:
  http://www.w3.org/mid/20110618052618.GA30408@wok.mcc.id.au

  In that mail I propose a solution, but wanted to hear from people as
  to whether that would unduly risk website compatibility before making
  the change.

I think the open bugs listed above could do with more time to allow
discussions to come to a conclusion.

There are a few of additional Editorial Notes left in the specification
itself, which are items that can be discussed in LC.  They might inform
a list of At Risk features, too.

The spec probably needs a bit of an editorial brush run through it, too,
but I don’t think that needs to hold up LC.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 04:12:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:03 UTC