Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:38 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>
>> Another way to put my earlier concern
>>
>> Sorry, what earlier concern? You are replying to my reply to Doug  
>> Schepers
>> on a sub-thread where I didn't see a message from you.
>
> So confusing! So many messages!

No, you just replied off-topic and rehashed an issue that we all agree  
needs fixing, seemingly as if I had implied that it wasn't an issue.  
Although the generous citations of my reply to Doug Schepers that you  
included of course implied nothing of the kind.

Why did you do that?

[big snip]

> My point is that understanding the semantics of the language as
> implemented by browser vendors is not possible by reading the language
> spec. These is not some hypothetical extension, but a mandatory way
> that ECMAScript implemented for the web must behave.

Well, duh.

We seem to agree, perhaps vehemently :-/.

One last time, for the record: it is a bug in ES specs that you can't  
follow th
The whole point of bothering the HTML WG, public-webapps, and es- 
discuss about collaboration between Ecma and W3C folks has been to  
fill gaps between specs and reality. We had some false starts in my  
view (like trying to move ES WebIDL bindings to Ecma up front, or  
ever). But the issues laid out in Sam's original cross-post were  
exactly the "gaps" between ES specs, HTML5 ones, and browser  
implementations. At last some of the gaps are filled in HTML5 but not  
in ways that can be injected directly into ES specs.

We should fix the ES specs, and make whatever changes follow to the  
HTML5 specs. And maybe use WebIDL to constrain "host objects". All  
this has been said on the thread already. Were you not reading the  
messages I was?

/be

Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 06:29:27 UTC