- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:24:13 +0200
- To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:49:15 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote: > First: since editors seem to be liking ednotes, would folks see value in > having ReSpec generate anchors for them so we could easily link to them? If links to them have the "This verison" URL as base I guess that's fine... > • "What about non-ECMAScript implementations?" > > I think Cameron's idea of having a createXHR() available to the > languages that may need it could be useful indeed. I raised an issue on this. > • "Need to define which IDL specification we are going to conform to, if > any." > > This came up on xml-dev, where OMG IDL was blamed for the fact that we > have createElement() and createElementNS() in the DOM instead of just > one (there may be other reasons). I am all for forgetting about OMG IDL, > but I think we need to consider the following: > > - some folks generate Java interfaces from the IDLs. I think we're > safe so long as we generate a binding from what we have (which is easy > to add to ReSpec, I can do it) > - some implementations (Mozilla?) seem to use OMG IDL. Would they be > fine with something else, or with hacking the something else themselves, > or if we generated something more kosher and let them do whatever > workaround they do to get around it for stuff they already support? > - the stuff that's in the interface definition should be formal to > some point. If we don't use OMG IDL, it would be really best if we > defined whatever it is we use. We can keep it simple, but we might not > be able to dodge writing a Note describing it. This seems fine. Although I'm not sure who's going to write that Note... > • "What if languages don't have functions? Perhaps this should be an > EventListener?" > > What DOM 3 Events does currently is that in the Javascript binding it > make EventListener be a Function (and doesn't give it the handleEvent > field, which is debatable but would work well here). I think we should > consider this option. I raised an issue on this. > • "What about HEAD requests?" > > This is worth a test of what current implementations do. Assuming a void > it would be best to go to 3 once (so that we're always guaranteeing that > 3 is touched at least once for any complete request, it makes scripting > with it simpler), and hop immediately to 4. Yeah something like that. I'll try to add some text to that affect somewhere... > • "What about PUT and DELETE?" > > We were fairly agreed that these should be supported at the f2f, unless > there is a good reason not to (e.g. current implementations skip them). > In fact our resolution was that (again, unless we bumped into something > during testing) all methods should be allowed, including the DAV ones > which would be very cool for some uses, for instance CMS UIs. That's fine. I guess we need some text for them though. How they are handled and all that. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 09:24:28 UTC