- 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>
-public-webapps +public-script-coord 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