Re: [heycam/webidl] Considering factoring WebIDL to allow use from the ECMAScript specification (#486)

In the ECMAScript spec, we're currently sticking to a bunch of unstated conventions about how things are exported. I think TC39 will probably be sticking to these. It would be nice to have these somehow documented. If we're pulling 

The other concern is that I expect TC39 to have would be linking JavaScript too tightly to the Web Platform. This isn't just about Node.js; there are lots of uses of JS outside of the web, and the committee is interested in this goal in an abstract way as well as how it relates to Node.js. If we depend on something that normatively references the web platform, or is even just very big and unnecessarily complex for the application, I expect committee members to be skeptical of the whole thing.

In my opinion, it makes sense for TC39 to adopt some kind of IDL even if we couldn't get the benefits of synergy with WebIDL. If WebIDL can work, that's excellent and the best case; if it won't work here for any reason (such as inappropriate coupling, or syntax that's considered too unfriendly, or missing features), I think it'd still be a benefit to TC39 to use some other IDL-like thing. I've filed this issue and #484 #485 in order to explore ways to try to make WebIDL acceptable for TC39.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/486#issuecomment-349413576