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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:57:59 +0200
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u0s4mxdo64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
> Meanwhile, what we need is concrete bug reports of specific instances  
> where the existing WebIDL description of key interfaces is done in a way  
> that precludes a pure ECMAScript implementation of the function.

Is there even agreement that is a goal?

I personally think the catch-all pattern which Brendan mentioned is quite  
convenient and I do not think it would make sense to suddenly stop using  
it. Also, the idea of removing the feature from Web IDL so that future  
specifications cannot use it is something I disagree with since having it  
in Web IDL simplifies writing specifications for the (legacy) platform and  
removes room for error.

Having Web IDL is a huge help since it clarifies how a bunch of things map  
to ECMAScript. E.g. how the XMLHttpRequest constructor object is exposed,  
how you can prototype XMLHttpRequest, that objects implementing  
XMLHttpRequest also have all the members from EventTarget, etc. I'm fine  
with fiddling with the details, but rewriting everything from scratch  
seems like a non-starter. Especially when there is not even a proposal on  
the table.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 10:09:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC