W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: WebIDL checker

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:11:23 +0200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Kai Hendry <hendry@aplix.co.jp>
Message-Id: <1248952283.10352.4327.camel@localhost>
Le jeudi 30 juillet 2009 à 12:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:20:40 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
> > I have just released a simple on-line WebIDL checker:
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/07/webidl-check
> > It detects bugs in the WebIDLs it finds inside HTML documents - it looks
> > for <pre> elements with a class set to "idl" or "webidl", and then
> > validates what it extracts using Aplix' widlproc:
> > http://widl.webvm.net/svn/widlproc/trunk/doc/widlproc.html
> Awesome! 

Thanks! Most of the merits come from Kai and Tim from Aplix, fwiw, since
they produced widlproc.

> It seems to contain a few bugs however:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/07/webidl-check?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcsswg%2Fcssom-view%2F
> It is probably that I'm using some of the newer features that have not been integrated into the checker yet.

Indeed, the underlying processor (widlproc) is based on the grammar of
the current TR version of WebIDL; I understand that updating it with a
newer grammar should be just a matter of updating
http://widl.webvm.net/svn/widlproc/trunk/src/grammar and recompiling
widlproc; I guess I'm leaning toward doing that when a new version of
WebIDL gets into TR.

(I've also made sure that the checker detects WebIDL examples in the
WebIDL spec itself, which highlights the current missing features of
2F2006%2Fwebapi%2FWebIDL%2F )

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 11:11:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:18 UTC