W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > July 2006

Re: XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative

From: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:52:46 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-id: <44C7113E.2040600@tid.es>

Robin Berjon escribió:
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 16:24, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca wrote:
>> It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is 
>> not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG-IDL.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "us[ing] the bindings of OMG-IDL", but I 
> don't think we are. The "IDL" in the draft is there because it's 
> intuitive to people who are used to the DOM specifications and the 
> such. We're not trying to conform to OMG IDL simply because it's not 
> powerful enough to capture what we need to express.
>
Bindings is the word that is used in the document :-) . I think is a 
mistake, they are referring to language mappings, that is, the rules 
that govern how each element in IDL is mapped to an element in a 
concrete programming language. If you don't conform to something it's 
better not to use it. It makes nonsense. What a dialect of IDL are you 
inventing? I think that a document that tries to standardize something 
and itself doesn't conform or adhere other standards is simply nonsense.

>> If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it 
>> could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it 
>> directly in EcmaScript.
>
> I'm not sure Ecmascript would be a good option here, but I don't have 
> a strong opinion. The best option would be to document a "Web API IDL" 
> but that's quite a lot of work.
Why ECMAScript is not a good option? All the DOM developers and Web 
Developers know the language and in fact the APIs you are trying to 
standardize are yet defined in browsers and developers are used to use 
them from EcmaScript.
>
> --Robin Berjon
>    Senior Research Scientist
>    Expway, http://expway.com/
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 06:59:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT