Re: Web IDL Garden Hose

On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:

> It would be pretty nice if the language bindings of WebIDL were
> available in pure ES, where possible. To some degree, that is not
> currently possible (in ES3), but it will be a lot better in ES5. I
> think it might actually be possible to get a large degree of
> completion just using the JavaScript available in Spidermonkey.

What do you mean by "available"? A lot of Web IDL interfaces are  
actually implementable in ES5 (at least the interface part - not  
necessarily the underlying functionality without relying on APIs  
outside the language). Using ES5 as the reference baseline would help  
make this more clear perhaps.

  - Maciej

> This might also be a useful step in the direction that I was hoping
> for in some earlier postings.
> -- Yehuda
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <>  
> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [mailto:es-discuss-
>>>>] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
>>>>> There is no old version.
>>>> Right, this is v1. What previous W3C API specifications had  
>>>> relied on
>>>> was either OMG IDL, or the common lore understanding that people  
>>>> were
>>>> familiar with this way of expressing APIs, so they'd get it right.
>>>> We're trying to do a bit better than that.
>>> The primary concern of TC39 members is with the WebIDL ECMAScript
>>> bindings.  I haven't yet heard any particular concerns from TC9  
>>> about WebIDL
>>> as an abstract language independent interface specification  
>>> language. Since
>>> W3C seems committed to defining language independent APIs, I would  
>>> think
>>> that the language independent portion of the WebIDL spec. would be  
>>> the only
>>> possible blocker to other new specs.
>>> It seems like this might be a good reason to decouple the  
>>> specification of
>>> the actual WebIDL language from the specification of any of its  
>>> language
>>> bindings.
>> Defining the Web IDL syntax without defining any language bindings  
>> would not
>> be very useful:
>> 1) The syntax is to a large extent designed around being able to  
>> express the
>> right behavior for language bindings, particularly ECMAScript  
>> bindings. So
>> we can't really lock it down without knowing that it can express  
>> the needed
>> behavior in the bindings, which requires the bindings to be done.
>> 2) To actually implement any spec using Web IDL, implementors need  
>> at least
>> one language binding, and most implementors will consider an  
>> ECMAScript
>> binding to be essential. Without the bindings being defined, it  
>> will not be
>> possible to build sound test suites for the specs using Web IDL.
>> 3) The whole point of Web IDL was to define how DOM and related Web  
>> APIs map
>> to languages, and especially ECMAScript. Previous specs used OMG  
>> IDL where
>> the mapping was not formally defined, and implementors had to read  
>> between
>> the lines. Removing language bindings from Web IDL would return us  
>> to the
>> same bad old state, thus missing the point of doing Web IDL in the  
>> first
>> place.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
> -- 
> Yehuda Katz
> Developer | Engine Yard
> (ph) 718.877.1325

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 10:28:55 UTC