- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:56:08 +0200
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > It would merely be > part of WebIDL's continued presumption to describe non-JS APIs, with the > (mostly pointless) cost of making WebIDL a worse language for describing JS > APIs. To be clear, at this point this is mostly inertia and lack of volunteers to evolve the current vocabulary in the right direction. We have about three months of outstanding work on IDL (my estimate based on the bug reports) and it would probably took another couple of months, including coordinating all the changes with browsers, to make it look more like JS. However, nobody seems to have time to do this work. If you want, it could be you ;-) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 07:56:35 UTC