W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [XHR] Error flag

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:18:48 +0100
To: "Kartikaya Gupta" <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ulzwdmxt64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:05:36 +0100, Kartikaya Gupta  
<lists.webapps@stakface.com> wrote:
> I see the change in the XHR2 draft, but not the XHR draft.

Forgot to commit, should be fixed now.


>> I was not planning on doing this. It makes the IDL unreadable in my
>> opinion and I believe it is not required in Web IDL (and if it is we
>> should change that :-)).
>
> It does hamper readability somewhat, but it also increases usefulness. I  
> guess the question is whether the IDL is informative or normative. If  
> it's normative, then I think the exceptions should be added for  
> correctness.

It is normative, as in combination with Web IDL it defines how languages  
bindings are supposed to work.


> The [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes are much worse for  
> readability, IMO.

True, but they have a nice property (less prose needs to be written in the  
specification).


> And on the topic of IDL, I assume you're sticking with your plan of not  
> specifying a module/namespace?

It seems like clutter to me. Can't we have a default module all W3C  
specifications use unless otherwise specified?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2008 11:19:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT