- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:53:33 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> I personally think we should reserve IDL for things people will want to do
> more than once, since the point is making sure that such things are done
> uniformly and the work can be reused.
The other benefit would be having only one specification being
responsible for the translation to ECMAScript since thus far that's
not exactly been a stable source.
We would likely still need IDL to define these as IDL types somehow so
they can be used in IDL blocks. Or make it clear in IDL that other
specifications can define IDL types too without using "interface ...
{};".
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 14:53:59 UTC