Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

Marcos,

So OK, if we just remove the module keyword from the
accelerometer<http://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html>
 definition, you're saying that will have no effect upon any aspect of the
implementation of the accelerometer API?

In terms of the need for the module keyword, I'm waiting for WAC members
(who seem the main users of this so far) to either voice opinions or accept
the change. My main concern is potential impact to the specs and
implementations. If there is none, then clearly there should be no issue
with removing the module keyword.

Re objections to this feature, when I referred to "W3C" I was of course
meaning the consensus of the Webapps group, which represents the W3C in this
decision.

Bryan

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Marcos Caceres
<marcosscaceres@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe the concern is about changes to Web IDL breaking any
> running
> > code (is that possible in any case? Web IDL is just a specification
> > language...).
> >
> > But it could "break" specifications (affect them in a way that does
> impact
> > the code which implements them). Future versions of a spec that did have
> > modules defined would have to change to comply with a new Web IDL version
> > without modules. How would you propose that such a hypothetical new
> version
> > deal with this change?
> >
> > Take a simple example: the WAC 2.0 Accellerometer API:
> > http://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html
> >
> > The purpose of this question is to see if the actual impact of this
> change
> > (on specifications, and the related impacts on implementations) is clear.
> >
> > On the second point (a WAC extension for modules), how would that be
> > defined?
>
> E.g., "The Accelerometer API" and just remove "module" from the title
> and from the WebIDL. I don't think any spec in WAC references any
> other IDL in another module in the way that WebIDL defines... so there
> would be no impact. Like you said, it's mostly a specification
> language and most of these specifications are written in HTML... so
> just hyperlink to the API you want to use from another spec (i.e.,
> what was once a module). It's common for specs to do this already
> (e.g., interface SomeNewEvent : Event {} ... where Event links to DOM
> Core's definition of an Event).
>
> > If WAC (and OMA) really needed such an extension, why would W3C
> > object to it being a part of the Web IDL spec (if it is not used in W3C
> > specs then fine, but the universe of Web API specifications is larger
> than
> > W3C...).
>
> I don't think anyone was "objecting" (particularly not "the W3C",
> which is just an innocent bystander); the question is if there is any
> value/use case for module and is anyone really using it beyond what
> could be done with prose?
>
> I personally don't see much use for modules... they are a nice
> grouping-thingy, but just seem to add more complexity.
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>