- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:43:10 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.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 Sep 29, 2009, at 21:20 , Cameron McCormack 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. WebApps has a document in LC that depends on it (Widgets 1.0: The widget interface), and it's a really trivial document to test — we don't expect it to be long before we can transition, but it is blocking on its dependency on WebIDL. I'd say it's at most one month before its progress is hampered by process alone. It's too early to tell but DAP has some low-hanging fruits that I would expect it to be possible to make quick progress on (famous last words — I know). Here we're looking at a 3-6 months window. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 09:43:42 UTC