- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:25:15 +0200
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, 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>
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:20:10 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > 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. Before all the relevant implementation and test suite work is done I suspect at least a year has passed. So one year from now would be good, though sooner is better. (For specifications I edit anyway.) Having said that, settling down on syntax changes I would prefer to do sooner. I'm fine with more simplifications and nicer looking constructs such as the recently introduced getter/setter, but it would be nice if we could round that set of changes up before the end of this year. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 09:26:23 UTC