- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:44:51 -0700
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4d2fac900909290944t1ae5f09w8f67c64c8a8313e3@mail.gmail.com>
---------- 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 -- Cheers, --MarkM
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 16:45:31 UTC