W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Haskell and W3C specs

From: Dimitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:14:08 -0400
Message-ID: <bcba51a0907151814l791f2a8ave95177221c60f538@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> I don't really understand why we would need different element types to
> have different interfaces. You can tell what kind of element an object is
> based on its tag name. Would we give every different element in XML its
> own interface?

OK, let me put some background here.

There are a number of projects in Haskell targeting Web application
development. One piece missing is an IDL conversion tool. I am taking
care of this.

The IDL interface hierarchy maps to the Haskell type system pretty
well, but there are two minor specification inconsistencies that
(easily I believe) can be resolved on the W3C side. Both probably
exist since the very beginning of these specifications' life.

One is missing interfaces for some HTML tags that I have brought up
here. Another is inconsistent naming of tags and interfaces, see

These two things are needed just for consistency, and for convenience
of automated IDL bindings derivation with proper type information.
With Haskell used to generate client-side Javascript, IDL interface
type information matters only at compile time, and mostly disappears
at runtime.

So, if this is not the W3C position to officially supplement the
existing specification with the information I am talking about, it can
be taken care of at the each tool implementor's side. But if the
position is to provide these missing pieces, I am sure developers of
IDL implementations in any language would benefit from that.

Thank you.

Dimitry Golubovsky

Anywhere on the Web
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 01:14:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC