RE: Modules (27 September 2011 Last Call Working Draft)

>From an implementer point of view, having just launched the "WinRT" [1, 2] in Windows 8, it seems like specifying such an API in JavaScript would be an ideal use for Modules. I'm expressing that as a matter-of-fact perspective, and not as an endorsement to keep modules.

>From a spec standpoint, if we think we might build a case to remove them later, we should at least mark Modules as "at risk".

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh464942(v=VS.85).aspx
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RunTime

-----Original Message-----
From: public-script-coord-request@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 12:08 PM
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Subject: Modules (27 September 2011 Last Call Working Draft)

3.2. Modules
Could the example in this section use a [prefix]. It would help (me) understand the prefixed name algorithm. 

About keeping modules... I guess it's done already so you might as well keep 'em. They don't seem to do much harm, though their erroneous use in both WAC and Webinos specs is a cause of concern. I think people are screwing up modules (and WebIDL) in general because it's being used for supplementing prose. Might be a situation where, if someone was to build them, the (syntax-checking/test-producing/code-generating/milkshake-making) tools might save us :) 

I guess more importantly, has any implementor expressed interest in keeping modules?

Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 18:51:48 UTC