W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [WebIDL] Including other IDL fragments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:42:42 +0100
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uoeytgdb64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:34:56 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
> [...]
>
> Does Web IDL need such a mechanism?  Should it be up to the user of the
> IDL fragments to have all the relevant ones passed to the IDL processor
> in the right order?

If there is enough data to determine the right order it seems nice if we  
do not have to bother with it.


> At the moment, for example, selectors-api references some DOM Core
> interfaces in its IDL without them having been declared earlier:
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#nodeselector
>
> XMLHttpRequest similarly doesn’t declare the Document type that it uses:
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest
>
> (Plus the interface is not explicitly in the dom module.)
>
> Any thoughts about how to deal with this?

As for XMLHttpRequest not being in the dom module, can we declare that to  
be the default module interfaces will be in? That would save a lot of  
redundant data in the primary user of this specification, namely W3C  
specifications extending the dom module.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 11:43:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT