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

RE: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:09:36 +0000
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <90EDC335A511F2479C63F7337D3CE7DB6B3E6E@TK5EX14MBXC116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
+1

>-----Original Message-----
>From: es-discuss-bounces@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
>bounces@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
>Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:56 AM
>To: Anne van Kesteren
>Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; HTML WG; es-discuss
>Subject: Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination
>
>Three distinct topics are being mixed up here:
>
>1. Whether to use WebIDL or some unproposed alternative.
>
>2. Whether to use catchall patterns in new WebIDL-defined interfaces.
>
>3. Whether the JS WebIDL bindings should be standardized by Ecma or W3C.
>
>The straw man (0. Whether to remove catchall patterns from existing
>WebIDL interfaces required for backward compatibility) is nonsense and
>I'm going to ignore it from here on.
>
>My positions are:
>
>1. WebIDL, the bird in the hand (I agree with Sam: go invent something
>better, come back when you're done).
>
>2. Don't keep perpetuating catchall patterns, they are confusing for
>developers and costly for implementors and static analysis tools, even
>if implementable in some future ES edition.
>
>3. Don't care.
>
>I differ from Mark on 3, but that's ok. What is not ok is to waste a
>lot of time arguing from divergent premises that need to be unpacked
>or else let alone for now, when we could be collaborating on concrete
>issues such as split windows, execution model, catchall policing, etc.
>
>Mark's Joe with his JoeLang bindings for WebIDL vs. Anne's point about
>the primacy of JavaScript bindings for WebIDL-defined interfaces is
>not going to lead to rapid agreement on putting the ES WebIDL bindings
>in Ecma vs. leaving them in W3C. It's a rathole, IMHO.
>
>Both points of view have merit, but precedent and possession matter
>too, and Ecma can't plausibly fork or steal the binding spec. We're
>trying to collaborate, so let's get on with that hard work instead of
>trying to assail one another with principles that can't encompass the
>whole picture.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>/be
>_______________________________________________
>es-discuss mailing list
>es-discuss@mozilla.org
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 18:14:14 GMT

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