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

Re: WebIDL: how to address the various audiences and constraints?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:06:03 +0200
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "Mike Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.u0yxcdjj64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:40:20 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
> Wow! The amount of email on Web IDL over the last few days has been  
> amazing!
> I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the Web  
> IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one doc, ES  
> 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate doc, etc. Or  
> a core/non-core (e.g. L1/L2) split (I think Maciej used the term  
> "simplification" in one of his emails). Perhaps there is some other  
> split that would be useful.
> OTOH, splitting specs can create other problems such as synching the  
> specs, increased overhead for the Editor(s), communication (at least 3  
> WGs plus TC 39), etc.

I personally find it useful to be able to directly look up both Web IDL  
syntax and how it maps to ECMAScript. In fact, I do that pretty much all  
the time when I look at the draft.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 13:07:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:19 UTC