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

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:38:11 -0700
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: Paddy Byers <paddy.byers@gmail.com>, <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA6AB313.12FF0%blsaws@gmail.com>
I don't believe the concern is about changes to Web IDL breaking any running
code (is that possible in any case? Web IDL is just a specification
language...). 

But it could "break" specifications (affect them in a way that does impact
the code which implements them). Future versions of a spec that did have
modules defined would have to change to comply with a new Web IDL version
without modules. How would you propose that such a hypothetical new version
deal with this change?

Take a simple example: the WAC 2.0 Accellerometer API:
http://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html

The purpose of this question is to see if the actual impact of this change
(on specifications, and the related impacts on implementations) is clear.

On the second point (a WAC extension for modules), how would that be
defined? If WAC (and OMA) really needed such an extension, why would W3C
object to it being a part of the Web IDL spec (if it is not used in W3C
specs then fine, but the universe of Web API specifications is larger than
W3C...).

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

On 8/12/11 5:46 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Hi Paddy,
>> 
>> If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
>> browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer comply
>> with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
> 
> I don't think any runtimes would break... probably just this would
> need some changes:
> http://widl.webvm.net/
> 
> (though it is unlikely that the widl processor conforms to whatever
> the latest draft of WebIDL is)
> 
>> If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL
>> extension?
> 
> That would probably be fine.
> 
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 17:38:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT