Re: WebIDL Spec Status

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 6/25/14 11:58 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> In the case of WebIDL, my personal preference would be to not spend 
>> precious effort on WebIDL 1 CR, but instead to:
>> (1) publish WebIDL 1 CR as a WG Note without attempting to resolve 
>> outstanding issues, other than by clearly annotating the existence of those 
>> issues in the Note;
>> (2) focus on moving WebIDL 2E (2nd edition) to FPWD and thence to LC, etc.
>> If this process is followed, then it also may be useful to relabel these 
>> two works a bit, e.g., by calling what is now WebIDL CR something like 
>> "WebIDL Legacy" in a WG Note, and then using the generic name WebIDL for 
>> what is now called WebIDL 2E. Just an idea to consider.
> Well, I admit I like this proposal, quite a lot actually, however, I don't 
> know if it will satisfy the relevant process requirements (f.ex. [NormRef]). 
> (Perhaps I should move this proposal to the public-w3process list ...)
> Phillippe, Yves, Cindy - what are your thoughts on Glenn's proposal for v1?
> Glenn - would your v1 WG Note proposal satisfy all of the WebIDL reference 
> cases that concern you (I'm wondering in particular about specs from other 
> SSOs that reference WebIDL)?

I'm not a fan of shelving v1, I'd rather remove the ECMAscript binding 
from v1 and keep only the syntax (v2 should contain everything as there 
are additions to the syntax).

> All - feedback on Glenn's proposal is certainly welcome.
> -Thanks, AB
> [NormRef] <>

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.


Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 13:47:31 UTC