Fwd: Re: WebIDL: Re: [Minutes] MIT Site 08 March 2011

FYI about the WebIDL spec going to REC.

-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: WebIDL: Re: [Minutes] MIT Site 08 March 2011
Date de renvoi : Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:09:55 +0000
De (renvoi) : w3t@w3.org
Date : Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:09:48 -0400
De : Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Organisation : World Wide Web Consortium
Pour : Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Copie à : Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, W3T MIT <w3t-mit@w3.org>, W3C Team 
<w3t@w3.org>,  Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 16:56 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I see some discussion on the status of WebIDL, but I am not sure I understand neither the current status nor the issues.
>
> However... in the SW activity we do have API documents in development that depend on WebIDL as a means to formalize the API. The documents are in a relatively early stage but are planned to evolve quickly this year. If there is a danger of getting suspended on WebIDL, then I would prefer to take out WebIDL now rather than in a year.
>
> So: can somebody give me an update on where we are with WebIDL, will it become a Rec soon, or will continue to be in a suspended stage as it is now?

- We're looking at publishing a new LC at the end of the month or
beginning of April.
- This LC will be a subset of the existing WebIDL spec, ie without the
unstable features and to allow documents such CSS3 Selectors to move
forward. So, unless you're using advanced features, that spec will be
enough for you.
- CR should be short since the intent is to reflect what's currently in
use in other specs. We'll do like Infoset to test it basically. In fact,
we might even try to skip CR.
- so we could have a REC for WebIDL by the beginning of the fall I think
- if you're not using any [Supplemental], [Optional] things, you can
link to one of the DOM specifications instead for basic types such as
DOMString [1] and link to OMG IDL as a general reference for IDL.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#BasicTypes
- if you're using things like [Supplemental], you could copy the
definition into your spec. I just did that for the Web Performance spec
in fact. Matt is also looking at this for the Geolocation API.
- The timeline of the more advanced spec hasn't been established yet.

Philippe

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:36:30 UTC