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

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:48:16 -0700
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-Id: <966D59F4-97D7-4440-8B48-1154A2EF9986@apple.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Allen Wirfs-Brock:
>> Every place the WebIDL ECMAScript binding "overrides" an ECMAScript  
>> specification
>> internal method is a concern as these are special case extensions  
>> to the ECMAScript
>> semantics.  As language designers we need to understand if these  
>> special cases are
>> exemplars of general deficiencies in the language that should be  
>> addressed.
>> In particular  now that ES5 is finished, WebIDL has a richer  
>> language to bind to then
>> it had with ES3.  We need a WebIDL binding that maximizes use of  
>> ES5 capabilities rather
>> than inventing non-standard (from an ES perspective) language  
>> extensions.
> Indeed, much of the custom [[Get]] etc. functionality can be turned  
> into
> ES5 meta-object stuff.  A pertinent question is then: should we change
> Web IDL to specify an ES5 binding (and not ES3) at this point, given
> that specs depending on it want to advance along the Rec track?

I would avoid depending on ES5 until there are multiple realworld  
implementations at least, especially because
the interaction between the es5 meta-object functionality and host  
objects is less than clear at present.


> -- 
> Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 22:51:08 UTC

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