Re: Publishing a new version of the WD

That's now fixed.

Are there any other objections to moving forward to the WD? If not, I'll
start the process of correcting any validation errors we've accidentally


On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <> wrote:

> Ross Patterson <>, 2012-12-26 11:36 -0600:
> > And one independent question: is there a published definition of the IDL
> > that the spec is using?
> Simon and David: The spec should list WebIDL as a normative reference in
> the References section. You can do that by adding something like one of the
> following paragraphs to the Conformance Requirements section:
>   The IDL fragments in this specification must be interpreted as required
>   for conforming IDL fragments, as described in the Web IDL specification
>   [[!WEBIDL]].
>     -or-
>   Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined in
>   this specification must implement them in a manner consistent with the
>   ECMAScript Bindings defined in the Web IDL specification [[!WEBIDL]],
>   as this specification uses that specification and terminology.
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 18:41:55 UTC