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

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:28:13 -0700
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-Id: <17FABF99-6E1A-47DE-9E7D-5A11AC760CF0@mozilla.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:16 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> OK, that is indeed what I’m hearing from you guys.  “Host objects may
> implement these [internal] methods in any manner unless specified
> otherwise” in ES3 doesn’t sound like it’s particularly discouraging of
> the different behaviour that Web IDL prescribes.

That is regrettable ES1-era language, written to accommodate the "host  
objects" found prominently in IE due to too-low-level COM integration.  
It should have come with color commentary advising against exploiting  
the barn-door-sized loopholes.


>> Why is functionality that isn't available through native objects
>> needed?
>
> For web compatibility, really.

Web Storage is a recent example of something other than web  
compatibility at work. Imitation of what went before, keystroke- 
optimization to use the short property reference expression instead of  
get/put/remove methods, or both, AFAICT.


> Ignoring the legacy issues, assuming we have ES5 to build on, then  
> yeah
> it seems like most things can be done (from Maciej’s quick analysis).
> The array like objects do seem like a useful pattern for authors to  
> use,
> though.

Seems like everyone agrees Array-likes are not the issue.

/be
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 06:28:56 GMT

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