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

Re: Modules (27 September 2011 Last Call Working Draft)

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:17:07 +0000
Message-Id: <DC2072F5-B53D-4A0E-8E74-A3D03EA4D5D3@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>

On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> On 23/10/11 6:07 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> 3.2. Modules Could the example in this section use a [prefix]. It
>> would help (me) understand the prefixed name algorithm.
>> About keeping modules… I guess it's done already so you might as well
>> keep 'em. They don't seem to do much harm, though their erroneous use
>> in both WAC and Webinos specs is a cause of concern. I think people
>> are screwing up modules (and WebIDL) in general because it's being
>> used for supplementing prose. Might be a situation where, if someone
>> was to build them, the
>> (syntax-checking/test-producing/code-generating/milkshake-making)
>> tools might save us :)
>> I guess more importantly, has any implementor expressed interest in
>> keeping modules?
> Taking into account the lack of need for modules to describe the Web
> platform at the moment, I've removed them.  If we need to have a
> namespacing mechanism again in the future, we should design it to align
> with the upcoming ECMAScript modules work.
> Correspondly, I've also removed [NamespaceObject], and I've renamed
> [Prefix] to [JavaPackage] and made thus made it Java language binding
> specific.  There's a (very short) example in there of [JavaPackage] now.
> Please let me know if this is a satisfactory response to your comment.

It is a great response. Thank you! 

> Thanks,
> Cameron
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 11:19:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:45 UTC