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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:19:05 -0700
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>
Message-id: <F168E446-66AB-4EF2-B8FB-AC6D7349EEB0@apple.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>

On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon 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, 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.

Based on the conversation so far, I expect Web IDL in roughly its  
current state would not survive Last Call.

  - Maciej
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 23:19:48 UTC

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