W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:11:12 +1200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110714071112.GA3924@wok.mcc.id.au>
[I’m CCing public-script-coord and setting Reply-To to there.  If future
LC comments on Web IDL could be made there, I’d appreciate it.  Thanks.]

Anne van Kesteren:
> Having everything in the same module seems fine for the web platform.

FWIW, I agree, it’s a complication I have come around to thinking we can
do without.

Two things to be aware of if we drop the feature:

One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC.  Although I think their
spec stabilised well before now, so presumably they’re dependent on an
earlier WD of Web IDL, and thus it’s probably not a big deal to drop the
feature, aside from the fact that we should focus on the Web and not
other concerns.

Two, certain Web platform interfaces have been in particular packages
in the Java binding, e.g. DOM Core interface have been in org.w3c.dom,
Events in org.w3c.dom.Events, and so on.  I don’t think this arrangement
has any particular benefits.  If Java implementations of Web platform
APIs need to keep interfaces from these specs in particular Java
packages, this could be done out-of-band from the IDL.

If ECMAScript Harmony modules gain traction, it might make sense in the
future to reintroduce IDL modules and connect them to ES ones.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 07:11:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT