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

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:33:57 -0700
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-id: <72007EDF-5796-4C6F-9BAB-9AA82909E453@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> At the upcoming TPAC, there is an opportunity for F2F coordination  
> between these two groups, and the time slot between 10 O'Clock and  
> Noon on Friday has been suggested for this.

It would be nice if the coordination time slot wasn't at a time that  
the HTML WG is meeting, and perhaps was on a day the Web Apps WG is  
meeting or the plenary day. I say this because:

A) It would be poor form for Sam and myself to miss one of the HTML WG  
sessions, but I suspect both of us will be interested in the Web  
Apps / ECMA TC 39 joint session. Or at least I am, having a great  
interest in Web IDL.

B) Some Web Apps WG members may be attending TPAC only for the days  
Web Apps is meeting WG.

Thus, a time slot on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of TPAC would be  


> To help prime the pump, here are four topics suggested by ECMA TC39  
> for discussion.  On these and other topics, there is no need to wait  
> for the TPAC, discussion can begin now on the es-discuss mailing list.
> - - -
> The current WebIDL binding to ECMAScript is based on ES3... this  
> needs to more closely track to the evolution of ES, in particular it  
> needs to be updated to ES5 w.r.t the Meta Object Protocol.  In the  
> process, we should discuss whether this work continues in the W3C,  
> is done as a joint effort with ECMA, or moves to ECMA entirely.
> - - -
> A concern specific to HTML5 uses WebIDL in a way that precludes  
> implementation of these objects in ECMAScript (i.e., they can only  
> be implemented as host objects), and an explicit goal of ECMA TC39  
> has been to reduce such.  Ideally ECMA TC39 and the W3C HTML WG  
> would jointly develop guidance on developing web APIs, and the W3C  
> HTML WG would apply that guidance in HTML5.
> Meanwhile, I would encourage members of ECMA TC 39 who are aware of  
> specific issues to open bug reports:
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/
> And I would encourage members of the HTML WG who are interested in  
> this topic to read up on the following emails (suggested by Brendan  
> Eich):
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003312.html
>  and the rest of that thread
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003343.html
>  (not the transactional behavior, which is out -- just the
>  interaction with Array's custom [[Put]]).
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-May/009300.html
>   on an "ArrayLike interface" with references to DOM docs at the  
> bottom
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-June/002865.html
>   about a WebIDL float terminal value issue.
> - - -
> There are larger (and less precise concerns at this time) about  
> execution scope (e.g., presumptions of locking behavior,  
> particularly by HTML5 features such as local storage).  The two  
> groups need to work together to convert these concerns into  
> actionable suggestions for improvement.
> - - -
> We should take steps to address the following "willful violation":
>  If the script's global object is a Window object, then in JavaScript,
>  the this keyword in the global scope must return the Window object's
>  WindowProxy object.
>  This is a willful violation of the JavaScript specification current  
> at
>  the time of writing (ECMAScript edition 3). The JavaScript
>  specification requires that the this keyword in the global scope
>  return the global object, but this is not compatible with the  
> security
>  design prevalent in implementations as specified herein. [ECMA262]
> - Sam Ruby
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 14:34:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:57 UTC