W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Paddy Byers <paddy.byers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:54:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CABEaZau0n4OTnXsmkDVqTpctfVO3i7M80OB=wBBh95KZh4WxGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>

Cameron McCormack:
> WAC is using modules solely as a grouping mechanism, and not as a
> namespacing mechanism, as far as I can see.  So it seems like no actual
> important functionality would be lost if we dropped modules from Web
> IDL.  If all you need to do is group some definitions together and give
> them a name, you could simply say in your specs:
>  The foo module comprises the following interfaces and exceptions: Foo,
>  Bar, DontTouchThat, etc.

Yes, you're correct. We had hoped to have a way to do that without just
resorting to prose, that's all.

If WAC specs already define an interface named, for example, Element, then
> it's going to be problematic if you want to have an implementation that
> supports both that WAC spec and the DOM spec.  You can't have both interface
> objects living at window.Element.
> If WAC specs define an interface named Goober, and then in the future a Web
> platform spec comes long and defines an interface named Goober, then that's
> also going to be a problem, and you could of course request the relevant W3C
> WG use a different name.

I don't think there are any actual conflicts and, if there were, I think WAC
would want choose alternative names to eliminate that conflict anyway.

Paddy/Brian, do you agree with my assessment?


Thanks - Paddy
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 10:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC