- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:36:44 -0700
- To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.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>
Allen Wirfs-Brock: > Every place the WebIDL ECMAScript binding "overrides" an ECMAScript specification > internal method is a concern as these are special case extensions to the ECMAScript > semantics. As language designers we need to understand if these special cases are > exemplars of general deficiencies in the language that should be addressed. > > In particular now that ES5 is finished, WebIDL has a richer language to bind to then > it had with ES3. We need a WebIDL binding that maximizes use of ES5 capabilities rather > than inventing non-standard (from an ES perspective) language extensions. Indeed, much of the custom [[Get]] etc. functionality can be turned into ES5 meta-object stuff. A pertinent question is then: should we change Web IDL to specify an ES5 binding (and not ES3) at this point, given that specs depending on it want to advance along the Rec track? -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 22:37:33 UTC