- From: Paddy Byers <paddy.byers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:43:28 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 22:43:55 UTC
Hi,, If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g. > browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer comply > with the spec (looking for real breakages here)? > > If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL > extension? > Of course WAC can define something. The question is whether or not there is general utility in having modules as a way of logically grouping a set of interface definitions. The thing we do that will break is that a module is used to group the interfaces that are associated with a particular feature. For example, when a programmer requests a feature - say http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/- then the interfaces that are enabled are exactly those belonging to the geolocation module. Without a module to group these interfaces, all we have is that the feature URI and the interfaces are implicitly connected by being defined in the same document. Concretely, this is used in the WAC SDK. When a widget's config.xml includes a feature element, then the interfaces and prototypes associated with that module are instantiated for content assistance purposes. If we only had that grouping implicit, or in prose in the spec, we would need to preprocess the WebIDL ad add further metadata, in order to include each new API into the SDK. Thanks - Paddy
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 22:43:55 UTC