- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:48:16 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, 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>
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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? I would avoid depending on ES5 until there are multiple realworld implementations at least, especially because the interaction between the es5 meta-object functionality and host objects is less than clear at present. --Oliver > > -- > Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/ >
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 22:49:00 UTC