- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:11:12 +1200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
[I’m CCing public-script-coord and setting Reply-To to there. If future LC comments on Web IDL could be made there, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.] Anne van Kesteren: > Having everything in the same module seems fine for the web platform. FWIW, I agree, it’s a complication I have come around to thinking we can do without. Two things to be aware of if we drop the feature: One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC. Although I think their spec stabilised well before now, so presumably they’re dependent on an earlier WD of Web IDL, and thus it’s probably not a big deal to drop the feature, aside from the fact that we should focus on the Web and not other concerns. Two, certain Web platform interfaces have been in particular packages in the Java binding, e.g. DOM Core interface have been in org.w3c.dom, Events in org.w3c.dom.Events, and so on. I don’t think this arrangement has any particular benefits. If Java implementations of Web platform APIs need to keep interfaces from these specs in particular Java packages, this could be done out-of-band from the IDL. If ECMAScript Harmony modules gain traction, it might make sense in the future to reintroduce IDL modules and connect them to ES ones. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 07:11:47 UTC