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

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:41:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL1non++54O7AHHM1PmGk50Kg6x-Kb6==5qpbsf1KPfarO6SQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Paddy Byers <paddy.byers@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe the concern is about changes to Web IDL breaking any running
> code (is that possible in any case? Web IDL is just a specification
> language...).
>
> But it could "break" specifications (affect them in a way that does impact
> the code which implements them). Future versions of a spec that did have
> modules defined would have to change to comply with a new Web IDL version
> without modules. How would you propose that such a hypothetical new version
> deal with this change?
>
> Take a simple example: the WAC 2.0 Accellerometer API:
> http://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html
>
> The purpose of this question is to see if the actual impact of this change
> (on specifications, and the related impacts on implementations) is clear.
>
> On the second point (a WAC extension for modules), how would that be
> defined?

E.g., "The Accelerometer API" and just remove "module" from the title
and from the WebIDL. I don't think any spec in WAC references any
other IDL in another module in the way that WebIDL defines... so there
would be no impact. Like you said, it's mostly a specification
language and most of these specifications are written in HTML... so
just hyperlink to the API you want to use from another spec (i.e.,
what was once a module). It's common for specs to do this already
(e.g., interface SomeNewEvent : Event {} ... where Event links to DOM
Core's definition of an Event).

> If WAC (and OMA) really needed such an extension, why would W3C
> object to it being a part of the Web IDL spec (if it is not used in W3C
> specs then fine, but the universe of Web API specifications is larger than
> W3C...).

I don't think anyone was "objecting" (particularly not "the W3C",
which is just an innocent bystander); the question is if there is any
value/use case for module and is anyone really using it beyond what
could be done with prose?

I personally don't see much use for modules... they are a nice
grouping-thingy, but just seem to add more complexity.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 19:42:05 UTC

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