- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:17:07 +0000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > 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. It is a great response. Thank you! > > Thanks, > > Cameron >
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 11:19:04 UTC