Re: Notes from our WebIDL + ES5 phone chat today...

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I took a couple of quick notes during our chat. I know I missed a few folks
> who were present down in CA, so please forward on if necessary.
>
>
>
> Allen and I both agreed that it was a worthwhile discussion. We also thought
> it would be useful to do this again next Monday (10/5—to avoid relative
> dates :-) before Cameron heads back to AU.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Travis
>
>
>
>
>
> …preamble stuff…
>
> (the notes joined the meeting in progress)
>
>
>
> AWB: Exemptions for host objects present from original ES3
>
> … Large set of secondary semantics (even syntax) needed to support the DOM
>
> … Creates a divide between what ES5 programs can do and what the DOM
> provides
>
>
>
> TL: Is WebIDL complete in terms of its "special object semantics"?
>
> CM: Yes, as driven  by requirements from HTML5 and assuming that HTML5 is
> largely fleshed out by now.
>
>
>
> CM: WebIDL is a mix of de-facto browser behavior and some "experimental"
> ideas (mixin prototype)
>
> DS: Do you indicate which things are strange/deprecated and shouldn't be
> used for new specs?
>
> CM: It's been suggested that this be done.
>
> AWB: Based on list discussions it sounds like there are some things that we
> could drop because they are not interoperable?
>
>
>
> DS: Is it is possible to have multiple ES bindings for different
> implementations, or is a single binding that should be held as the standard
> the better approach?
>
> CM: Is there buy-in to have such a thing? If not, it doesn't make much sense
>
>
>
> AWB: At least in ES committee, we haven't taken a union of what's out there,
> but an intersection of that behavior. For conflicts where there is no
> interoperability there is an opportunity to agree on a 3rd solution.
>
> … often easier to get agreement on the new solution (venders can implement
> the new one and still support the old behavior if necessary)
>
>
>
> DS: Two high-level decisions we could make…
>
> ... Should decide-- does WebIDL specify everything ever used in an
> implementation, or more of an idealized slice of what "should be"
> implemented?
>
>
>
> MM: ES5 has a strict mode. Some existing browser "tricks" could be opted out
> of ES5 strict.
>
> … Could consider moving "oddities" or funny behaviors to a non-normative
> section (appendix) such that an implementer can be considered "conforming"
> without having to implement the oddities.
>
> … High-level bit about "can you do it in JavaScript?". "caller" cannot be
> done natively in the language.
>
>
>
> TL: topic: multiple inheritance
>
> … discussion of current spec idea…
>
>
>
> CM: users would like the ability to override a mixin in once place (e.g.,
> EventTarget)
>

What does this mean?

I have never had a user present me with such request.

> TL: IE8 spread the mixins out over the affected objects (duplicating their
> definitions)
>
What does this mean?

Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 03:31:10 UTC