- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:10:06 +1000
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Doug Schepers:
> Maybe we should have a LC to draw out these comments...
Using LC to get detailed review seems fine. I suppose it will be in the
interests of authors of specs dependent on Web IDL to ensure that the
details are correct before it gets more mature.
> if not now, what timeframe are you thinking? What else needs to be
> done to the spec?
I’m hoping we can go to LC soon. I’m mostly done with the syntax
changes mentioned in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1122.html
(not checked in yet, though). These are the remaining things to be
addressed before LC:
* Testing to see if the defaults for [Null] and [Undefined] are
correct
* Decide what to do with passing too many/few arguments
http://www.w3.org/mid/20090622005322.GB27182@arc.mcc.id.au
* Restricting [[Class]]
http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0903072358030.2690@hixie.dreamhostps.com
* Deal with use of [Supplemental] in HTML 5
http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0906190537200.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com
* Define Date (or make it possible to be defined)
* Define sequences/ByteArray
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 00:10:51 UTC