- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:18:48 +0100
- To: "Kartikaya Gupta" <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:05:36 +0100, Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com> wrote: > I see the change in the XHR2 draft, but not the XHR draft. Forgot to commit, should be fixed now. >> I was not planning on doing this. It makes the IDL unreadable in my >> opinion and I believe it is not required in Web IDL (and if it is we >> should change that :-)). > > It does hamper readability somewhat, but it also increases usefulness. I > guess the question is whether the IDL is informative or normative. If > it's normative, then I think the exceptions should be added for > correctness. It is normative, as in combination with Web IDL it defines how languages bindings are supposed to work. > The [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes are much worse for > readability, IMO. True, but they have a nice property (less prose needs to be written in the specification). > And on the topic of IDL, I assume you're sticking with your plan of not > specifying a module/namespace? It seems like clutter to me. Can't we have a default module all W3C specifications use unless otherwise specified? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2008 11:19:33 UTC