Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination) from Maciej Stachowiak on 2009-09-26 (public-webapps@w3.org from July to September 2009)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:08:31 -0700
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Cc: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-id: <164CDD05-3CD1-4043-8D6A-2C0F63CB2AF1@apple.com>

On Sep 26, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

>
> No we are not.  This is exactly the heart of our concern. The WebIDL
> ECMAScript binding is not simply a mapping of IDL interface onto
> standard language features (such as is done for the Java binding).
> While it has some of that it also defines an extended ECMAScrpt  
> language
> with new semantics. (and I understand this is mostly a reflection
> of past (present?) practice of browser implementers).  Essentially,
> the semantics of "browser ECMAScript" has been arbitrarily split into
> two independently maintained standards.

Is there any concrete concern on this front other than property access  
catchalls?

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 20:09:13 UTC