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


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [mailto:es-discuss-
>] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
>Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:56 AM
>To: Anne van Kesteren
>Cc:; HTML WG; es-discuss
>Subject: Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination
>Three distinct topics are being mixed up here:
>1. Whether to use WebIDL or some unproposed alternative.
>2. Whether to use catchall patterns in new WebIDL-defined interfaces.
>3. Whether the JS WebIDL bindings should be standardized by Ecma or W3C.
>The straw man (0. Whether to remove catchall patterns from existing
>WebIDL interfaces required for backward compatibility) is nonsense and
>I'm going to ignore it from here on.
>My positions are:
>1. WebIDL, the bird in the hand (I agree with Sam: go invent something
>better, come back when you're done).
>2. Don't keep perpetuating catchall patterns, they are confusing for
>developers and costly for implementors and static analysis tools, even
>if implementable in some future ES edition.
>3. Don't care.
>I differ from Mark on 3, but that's ok. What is not ok is to waste a
>lot of time arguing from divergent premises that need to be unpacked
>or else let alone for now, when we could be collaborating on concrete
>issues such as split windows, execution model, catchall policing, etc.
>Mark's Joe with his JoeLang bindings for WebIDL vs. Anne's point about
>the primacy of JavaScript bindings for WebIDL-defined interfaces is
>not going to lead to rapid agreement on putting the ES WebIDL bindings
>in Ecma vs. leaving them in W3C. It's a rathole, IMHO.
>Both points of view have merit, but precedent and possession matter
>too, and Ecma can't plausibly fork or steal the binding spec. We're
>trying to collaborate, so let's get on with that hard work instead of
>trying to assail one another with principles that can't encompass the
>whole picture.
>Hope this helps,
>es-discuss mailing list

Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 18:14:16 UTC