W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Specs using Web IDL

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:10:06 +1000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090629001006.GA11982@arc.mcc.id.au>
Doug Schepers:
> Maybe we should have a LC to draw out these comments...

Using LC to get detailed review seems fine.  I suppose it will be in the
interests of authors of specs dependent on Web IDL to ensure that the
details are correct before it gets more mature.

> if not now, what timeframe are you thinking?  What else needs to be
> done to the spec?

I’m hoping we can go to LC soon.  I’m mostly done with the syntax
changes mentioned in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1122.html
(not checked in yet, though).  These are the remaining things to be
addressed before LC:

  * Testing to see if the defaults for [Null] and [Undefined] are
    correct

  * Decide what to do with passing too many/few arguments
    http://www.w3.org/mid/20090622005322.GB27182@arc.mcc.id.au

  * Restricting [[Class]]
    http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0903072358030.2690@hixie.dreamhostps.com

  * Deal with use of [Supplemental] in HTML 5
    http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0906190537200.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com

  * Define Date (or make it possible to be defined)

  * Define sequences/ByteArray

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 00:10:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT