- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:02:50 +0200
- To: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Jul 24, 2006, at 16:24, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca wrote:
> It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is
> not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG-
> IDL.
I'm not sure what you mean by "us[ing] the bindings of OMG-IDL", but
I don't think we are. The "IDL" in the draft is there because it's
intuitive to people who are used to the DOM specifications and the
such. We're not trying to conform to OMG IDL simply because it's not
powerful enough to capture what we need to express.
> If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it
> could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it
> directly in EcmaScript.
I'm not sure Ecmascript would be a good option here, but I don't have
a strong opinion. The best option would be to document a "Web API
IDL" but that's quite a lot of work.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 14:03:14 UTC