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

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:41:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4E451F5D.7020302@nokia.com>
To: ext Paddy Byers <paddy.byers@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Hi Paddy,

If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g. 
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer 
comply with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?

If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL 
extension?

-ArtB

On 8/12/11 2:27 AM, ext Paddy Byers wrote:
> (Previously send to public-script-coord but I was asked to forward to 
> webapps.)
>
> Hi,
>
>     Two things to be aware of if we drop the feature:
>
>     One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC. Although I think their
>     spec stabilised well before now, so presumably they’re dependent on an
>     earlier WD of Web IDL, and thus it’s probably not a big deal to
>     drop the
>     feature, aside from the fact that we should focus on the Web and not
>     other concerns.
>
>
> The BONDI spec has been superseded by the WAC spec [1] and this still 
> uses modules. The WAC spec is frozen and there is already a growing 
> list of incompatibilities between the WAC WebIDL and the latest WebIDL 
> spec - so in any event there would need to be changes if WAC creates a 
> new revision of its spec and wishes to migrate to the latest WebIDL.
>
> However, the motivation for using modules I think still stands, in 
> that a module is the unit by which support for a given feature is enabled.
>
> That is, we associate a WebIDL module with one or more features (in 
> the sense of [2]). If one or more of the features associated with a 
> module is successfully requested, then all of the interfaces belonging 
> to that module are available, and all of the objects (eg interface 
> objects) entailed by those interfaces are instantiated.
>
> If modules are dropped from WebIDL, then there would still be a desire 
> I think to have a logical grouping of interfaces, but we would have to 
> specify that in prose instead of in WebIDL.
>
> Thanks - Paddy
>
> [1]:http://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/webidl.html
> [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#the-feature-element-and-its-attributes
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 12:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC