Re: Bindings spec ready for FPWD?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
> I’ve filled in most of the interesting stuff for the Bindings spec, so 
> I think it could do with some more review.
>   
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/Binding4DOM/Overview.html?rev=1.38&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

Wow, that's awesome. Ship it!


Some comments:

In 2.8.2 you have IndexPutter and NamePutter which i presume should be 
Setters rather than Putters.

Regarding the 3.2.2 ed note, I vote for giving a mandated way; otherwise 
when people rely on a particular chain, it'll break in another browser and 
eventually all the browsers will have to do whatever IE picked (when they 
implement this).

It would be nice if the spec could suggest some boilerplate text for other 
specs to include, in the way that RFC2119 does. For example:

   IDL sections in this specification must be interpreted and implemented 
   as required by the "Language Bindings for DOM Specifications" 
   specification. [DOMBIND]

Is there anything else that a spec would have to do other than say 
something like the above and then use the various features you define? 
e.g. is there ever a case where prose is necessary to fully define 
something?

Is it necessary to explicitly list the exceptions that a method, getter, 
or setter can raise?

What's the purpose of the 'module' block?

Is the idea that DOM Core will define an 'exception' block for 
DOMExceptions?

For sequence<octet> it would be really nice if we could have a more native 
representation of a byte array than a UTF-16 string.

Editorial: you have "which functions, analagously to the" (extraneous 
comma) in various places.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'