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: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:44:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4d2fac900909271244n3196dc81w54646b687b016d24@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Sep 27, 2009, at 00:36 , Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> 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 tend to be rather in disfavour of anything that might cause WebIDL
> to be delayed in any way. I also think that keeping the ES3 binding is
> useful (in the short term at least) if only because it is familiar,

This seems like a standard without an audience, as ES5 is becoming official
well ahead of HTML5. Who needs HTML5 on ES3?

> which might point to building the ES5 one separately.
> If at all possible I'd rather it went to LC ASAP, and if needed that new
> stuff be done in a branched document.
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 19:45:27 UTC

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