W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: WebIDL Plans

From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:12:14 +0000
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0501MB1369CE3B9F5D455846AC718DDFFA0@CY1PR0501MB1369.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
I think before Web IDL can be considered stable in any way the idea of "ES bindings" needs to be eliminated and the relevant text merged into the sections defining the concepts. The idea of separate language bindings has caused severe confusion in several working groups already.

I also think the plan below illustrates how Web IDL, which is a basis for a continually-evolving platform and is itself tightly integrated with a continually evolving language, is a very bad fit for the usual level-N-REC style of spec. Instead, Web IDL should be maintained as a single document, with the REC evolving via "errata" (http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141). It must not have multiple levels: we've already seen that strategy fail dramatically with this exact spec, and we must not repeat it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 08:54
> To: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: WebIDL Plans
> Hi,
> We are planning to move WebIDL forward to REC, here is the plan to achieve
> that:
> 1/ remove the v1/v2 distinction.
>    The goal here is to remove entirely the now obsolete v1, and keep what is
> currently known as WebIDL v2 as the editor’s copy.
> 2/ Create a new document with "stable" features in the edcopy, where
> stable means the feature is implemented and useful for other specifications,
> and doesn't contain major bugs.
>   A tentative list of what would be needed is as follow.
>   * Everything from old v1 expect ArrayClass which is not used, nor
> implemented anywhere.
>   * Add Promise<T>, Iterators, NewObject, Dictionary constructors, Buffer
> types (USVString and ByteString as well, depending on their      status)
> 3/ Publish and work on the test suite.
> 4/ Try to go to REC asap.
> 5/ reiterate the process with WebIDL level ’n’ (name subject to usual
> bikeshedding) when more things are implemented, or when ES-(new
> version) will be out.
> This plan keeps the language definition and binding behaviors together, but
> strips out stuff that isn't stable, not widely implemented, or used in
> specifications. Also note that the goal is to generate the document from the
> edcopy, to eliminate as much as possible synchronisation issues, and reduce
> the load of the editor’s copy… editors.
> Thanks,
> --
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>         ~~Yves

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 16:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC