- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:57:59 +0200
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Meanwhile, what we need is concrete bug reports of specific instances > where the existing WebIDL description of key interfaces is done in a way > that precludes a pure ECMAScript implementation of the function. Is there even agreement that is a goal? I personally think the catch-all pattern which Brendan mentioned is quite convenient and I do not think it would make sense to suddenly stop using it. Also, the idea of removing the feature from Web IDL so that future specifications cannot use it is something I disagree with since having it in Web IDL simplifies writing specifications for the (legacy) platform and removes room for error. Having Web IDL is a huge help since it clarifies how a bunch of things map to ECMAScript. E.g. how the XMLHttpRequest constructor object is exposed, how you can prototype XMLHttpRequest, that objects implementing XMLHttpRequest also have all the members from EventTarget, etc. I'm fine with fiddling with the details, but rewriting everything from scratch seems like a non-starter. Especially when there is not even a proposal on the table. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 10:09:43 UTC