W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: WebIDL evolution, publications, etc (ACTION-36)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:24:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4D801154.2090308@digitalbazaar.com>
To: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/15/2011 01:53 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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. 
> ]]]

We use [Supplemental] - we can copy the definition of that into the spec
and reference the WebIDL REC for everything else. I don't think we use
[Optional], but we do use "optional" which is supported by the WebIDL
spec. We don't use Date. So, I think we're good.

> I am not 100% where it leads us for the API work, and whether we
> would normatively refer to WebIDL in future; you guys should tell us
> where we are. If there is indeed a LC and the end of the month, we
> can look at it and decide whether we are fine with it or whether we
> have to move away from WebIDL.

I think it would be a bad move to not use WebIDL, especially if there is
a REC by the time the RDF and RDFa APIs go to REC (which it sounds like
there would be). The latest WebIDL spec looks good:

http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 01:25:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC