- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:06:03 +0200
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "Mike Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:40:20 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > Wow! The amount of email on Web IDL over the last few days has been > amazing! > > I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the Web > IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one doc, ES > 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate doc, etc. Or > a core/non-core (e.g. L1/L2) split (I think Maciej used the term > "simplification" in one of his emails). Perhaps there is some other > split that would be useful. > > OTOH, splitting specs can create other problems such as synching the > specs, increased overhead for the Editor(s), communication (at least 3 > WGs plus TC 39), etc. > > WDYT? I personally find it useful to be able to directly look up both Web IDL syntax and how it maps to ECMAScript. In fact, I do that pretty much all the time when I look at the draft. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 13:07:21 UTC