W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2009

Fwd: WebIDL

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:44:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4d2fac900909290944t1ae5f09w8f67c64c8a8313e3@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: WebIDL
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

I was specifically responding to the idea that the spec has historical
baggage that isn't easy to ascertain. If we can make that sort of thing
explicit and perhaps create a more accessible guide to WebIDL, most of my
concerns would be quelled.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Sep 26, 2009, at 08:43 , Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
>> can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
>> understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
>> implementors).
> It is a worthy goal, but it won't be possible to make it so that everyone
> finds it easy and quick to understand. The current syntax is not familiar
> only to implementers, whoever has looked at DOM, WebAPI, SVG, etc. specs for
> documentation over the past decade will find it very familiar. In fact,
> WebIDL was started in part to formalise the notation that was used
> colloquially in W3C specifications, sometimes in a way that was OMG IDL
> compliant, but other times in manners more creative than that.
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 16:45:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:01 UTC