Re: WebIDL

I was specifically responding to the idea that the spec has historical
baggage that isn't easy to ascertain. If we can make that sort of thing
explicit and perhaps create a more accessible guide to WebIDL, most of my
concerns would be quelled.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Sep 26, 2009, at 08:43 , Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
>> Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
>> can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
>> understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
>> implementors).
>>
>
> It is a worthy goal, but it won't be possible to make it so that everyone
> finds it easy and quick to understand. The current syntax is not familiar
> only to implementers, whoever has looked at DOM, WebAPI, SVG, etc. specs for
> documentation over the past decade will find it very familiar. In fact,
> WebIDL was started in part to formalise the notation that was used
> colloquially in W3C specifications, sometimes in a way that was OMG IDL
> compliant, but other times in manners more creative than that.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>
>


-- 
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325