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

Re: [NoInterfaceObject]

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:57:00 +1200
Message-ID: <4E5F109C.2010404@mcc.id.au>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
CC: Andreas Gal <gal@mozilla.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On 30/08/11 10:56 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> And W3C could provide guidelines for when and how to introduce new
> global names and how to introduce object-based name-spacing to minimize
> the number of new global names introduced by emerging Web APIs. This
> could be done now and doesn't have to wait for ES-Harmony modules.

That is true.  (For the "object-based name-spacing" I assume you mean 
something like hanging APIs off window.navigator instead of directly off 
window?)

> A interface definition language specification is a very different thing
> from a API design guideline document. One tells you want is expressible,
> the other tells you while forms of expression an API designer should
> choose. For example Microsoft .NET has a published set of guidelines
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229042.aspx ) providing
> guidance for designing the APIs of .NET frameworks and class libraries.
>
> Ideally, there would be a W3C Web API Design Guidelines document that
> would be used in conjunction with the WebIDL spec.

I agree.

For the moment (since writing up such a document is a moderate 
undertaking), I think Web IDL would benefit from a statement about when 
to use [NoInterfaceObject].  I agree with Andreas that, for "concrete" 
interfaces, it should not be used unless there are particular web 
compatibility reasons not to.  We should otherwise consistently expose 
interface objects for "concrete" interfaces.
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 04:57:43 UTC

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