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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:16:15 -0700
Cc: 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>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-id: <9486FA25-9D7D-44B2-BD97-45D4D0DA3B1B@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> 

On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> 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 don't think these splits would be helpful. (Though if there is Web  
IDL functionality that is unneeded by current clients, I think it  
should be dropped for now.)

  - Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 06:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:17 GMT