W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

From: <marcos@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:34:15 +1000
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14163F33-9946-4B10-880D-7FAF0785D92E@marcosc.com>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>


> On 11 Jul 2016, at 10:45 PM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> The goal of publishing this as a REC is not to have a final document nor to please only
> the lawyers. The goal is to provide a document that contains the parts of the WebIDL
> syntax that are implemented, and the associated implemented ES-binding, as a guide
> for spec authors that are not following the main WebIDL spec evolutions (as not everybody 
> has your knowledge of what is or is not usable in WebIDL).

Yes, but that's precisely the point. If something is not interoperable in the spec, then it should be fixed. Now we are back at Domenic's email. No spec editors should be, or will be, referencing v1. It's simple pointless to think otherwise. Look, all browser vendors already implement promise-using WebIDL-based APIs, which means that they've already had to implement v2 features. 

I think a large segment of the WG has made it pretty clear that's it harmful to pretend that WebIDL 1 has any value to anyone but patent lawyers. Technically, it's just going to be bit-rotting trash sitting on TR (as you even acknowledge below). 

> 
> The -1 spec explicitly states that people wanting to implement WebIDL are invited to read
> the main WebIDL specification (that, ideally, should be automatically published as /TR/WebIDL ) because yes
> WebIDL-1 is _not_ the WebIDL specification, just a frozen snapshot of what was implemented as the 
> time of publication, not more than that, and bound to be replaced by a subsequent level later on.

Yes, but it's grossly obsolete and no one but patent lawyers should be, or will be, looking at it. So why bother putting it on TR? 

You can't seriously say that anyone writing specs would be using it to implement against - not even as joke. It has zero value from a technical perspective - yet huge value from an IPR perspective. 

I'm all for getting the IPR protection, but let's stop with putting useless things on TR. 
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 13:34:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:15:03 UTC