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

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

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:18:50 +1100
Message-ID: <4EE580AA.8010904@mcc.id.au>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 23/10/11 6:07 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 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?

Taking into account the lack of need for modules to describe the Web
platform at the moment, I've removed them.  If we need to have a
namespacing mechanism again in the future, we should design it to align
with the upcoming ECMAScript modules work.

Correspondly, I've also removed [NamespaceObject], and I've renamed
[Prefix] to [JavaPackage] and made thus made it Java language binding
specific.  There's a (very short) example in there of [JavaPackage] now.

Please let me know if this is a satisfactory response to your comment.


Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 04:19:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:05 UTC