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 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:12 GMT