- From: Victor Rodriguez Doncel <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:07:53 +0200
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- CC: florian.stegmaier@uni-passau.de, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello all, I think this debate is not merely about a syntaxis, but about how the API is going to be used. Functions defined in WebIDL look more appropiate to be implemented in Java, Javascript and in general web oriented applications. For desktop applications plain IDL would be better (there are bindings for C++ which are lacking in WebIDL) But given that we are in "video in the web", I think WebIDL is better (which, by the way, is very similar to IDL). Victor Thierry Michel escribió: > Hello, > > I have taken a look at the WebIDL latest spec > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/ > > It seems a good candidate language to describe our API interfaces with > ECMAScript and Java bidings. > > > I would like to have IDL experts from the Media Annot Group to look at > WebIDL and conclude if it would be a better choice than OMG IDL. > > I think Victor has a very good knowledge of IDL and Florian also > proposed to be in the loop. > > Any other volunteer with an IDL knowledge ? > > > > Thierry. >
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 10:08:38 UTC