- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:16:15 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: 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>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi All, > > 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. I don't think these splits would be helpful. (Though if there is Web IDL functionality that is unneeded by current clients, I think it should be dropped for now.) - Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 06:16:56 UTC