W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Web IDL syntax

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:57:10 +0200
To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Shiki Okasaka" <shiki@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.uxqbpki664w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:16:00 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:07:22 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
> wrote:
>> Cameron McCormack:
>>> Following are my half baked proposals.
>>
>> I’ve now baked all of these proposals into the spec, except for the one
>> about allowing multiple module levels with a module declaration (i.e.,
>> ‘module a::b::c’).
>>
>>   * Made ‘in’ optional
>>     http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-operations
>
> Having it optional will likely lead to inconsistently written IDLs,  
> which can be confusing. I think it would be better to either require it  
> (as legacy cruft, basically) or remove it altogether (the relevant IDLs  
> will need to be rewritten anyway for the other changes).

+1 to removing cruft. (Also, I'd hate to add it back to CSSOM View at this point :-P)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 13:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT