- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:24:36 -0400
- 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