- From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:01:23 +0100
- To: public-webapi@w3.org
"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 May 2007 03:33:39 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> > wrote: > > Implementors that use the IDL to generate code for the implementations: > > which would you prefer? > > Do implementors use the IDL directly or do they modify it before using it? > In the latter case making the specification easier to write and read makes > sense to me... Implementors that have ECMAScript support can also benefit > as they can probably auto-generate more code if ECMAScript properties > becomes part of the new IDL syntax. We don't auto-generate anything directly from the IDL, not least because of the sort of problems outlined earlier in this thread. Instead, we have our own internal XML format that serves the same purpose that we use to generate our DOM bindings headers, to drive automatic type coercions, and to build documentation of exactly which methods, constants, interfaces and properties are implemented. There is just too much DOM0 stuff that we need to support that isn't in the IDL in the later DOM specifications anyway. Trying to reverse engineer that into IDL format doesn't sound like a lot of fun. -- Stewart Brodie Software Engineer ANT Software Limited
Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 11:00:34 UTC