RE: [API] Issues on IDL

Certainly. Go ahead. But let's keep the public in the loop (and let's hope they contribute to finding resolution for these issues).

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: jmcf@tid.es [mailto:jmcf@tid.es] 
Sent: 12 June 2007 09:43
To: Rotan Hanrahan
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [API] Issues on IDL

That's why I was suggesting to create official issues in the issue 
tracking system, Rotan I will be more than happy creating them, is it ok 
with you and the rest of the group?

Best wishes

Rotan Hanrahan escribió:
> [Moving to public list]
>
> Agreed. The point of the questions was to start debate. The second question on the list is now being addressed by the Context Key taskforce, so hopefully we will have some ideas before the July meeting.
>
> The other questions remain open.
>
> I think the questions are best split into separate threads. I'll follow up soon.
>
> ---R
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-ddwg-request On Behalf Of José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
> Sent: 12 June 2007 08:35
> To: DDWG
> Subject: [API] Issues on IDL
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In order to continue with the work around the API, I would suggest to 
> start capturing the issues raised with the first sketch done by Rotan 
> [1]. These are:
>
> Should we be using well known types from other domains, such as DOMString?
>
> Can a Get method return a null/empty response?
> Should a failure to get something (because it's not there) be an 
> Exception, or should a special return value be used?
> Should an explicit set of values be used for Exception codes, or should 
> an enum type be used?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/SampleIdl
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 08:47:27 UTC