W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: WebIDL Dictionaries

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0300
Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5C3F5C5E-95DD-43D0-8B9B-E989C9EB437B@nokia.com>
To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Hi,

On 7.9.2011, at 22.21, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2011, at 19:09 , Anssi Kostiainen wrote:
>> Would it possible for the dictionary to show up within the same WebIDL block with other definitions? Currently it is wrapped within its own WebIDL block (or am I doing it wrong?), see:
>> 
>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/battery-status.html#batterystatusevent-interface
>> 
>> Some specs which do not use ReSpec.js but do use dictionaries seem to include dictionary within the same WebIDL block with other definitions which depend on it, e.g.:
>> 
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#interface-progressevent
>> 
>> I may try to get my hands dirty and hack with ReSpec.js myself, but I'm asking here first in case you have a preference because you're Mr. ReSpec.js :)
> 
> I can see how this is indeed nice, but given the way in which WebIDL support is implemented in ReSpec v1 it's a change I'd rather not make myself (the code is a mindless pile of horror). Supporting it in v2, which uses a proper WebIDL parser and templates in order to render it (or at least is getting there) would be easier, but I wouldn't advise switching to that for a mature spec such as Battery.

I forgot v2 was in the works. Given that, I believe it does not make sense to add any new features to v1, or to do significant refactoring. I revised my monkey patch that fixes the issue in the spec I edit, so I'm happy with what we have in ReSpec.js v1 currently.

-Anssi
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 09:26:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT