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

Re: WebIDL: how to address the various audiences and constraints?

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:20:10 -0700
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20090929192009.GA11642@wok.mcc.id.au>

Arthur Barstow:
> I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the
> Web IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one
> doc, ES 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate
> doc, etc. Or a core/non-core (e.g. L1/L2) split (I think Maciej used
> the term "simplification" in one of his emails). Perhaps there is
> some other split that would be useful.

I’m not really convinced that splitting the language bindings out of the
spec would be useful and would introduce some amount of delay in getting
the spec done.  The ECMAScript bindings are definitely the most
important language binding, and changes to those bindings more often
result in changes to the IDL syntax section (more often than the Java
bindings, anyway).  In theory the IDL is language independent, but
practically the design of the IDL is somewhat influenced by what we want
to express for the ECMAScript bindings.

As for having a simplified version first including only what’s needed
for those specs that need Web IDL done quickly, maybe.  HTML5 is by far
the biggest user of the esoteric ECMAScript features.  I guess I would
like to know, for the authors of dependent specs, how quickly they need
Web IDL done.

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 19:21:08 UTC

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