- From: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:40:16 +0900
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:38:21 +0200, Shiki Okasaka <shiki at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, K?hn Wolfgang <wo.kuehn at enbw.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> As for the html5 elements, will there be a new package org.w3c.dom.html5? >> >> This is our concern, too. Historically each W3C specification >> introduced its own module name. However, the recent specifications >> tend to omit the module specification in the IDL definition. >> >> ? ?cf. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1380.html >> >> In the IDL files we used above, we chose module names that seem to be >> practical, but those are not part of the standard. Hopefully more >> people will revisit this issue sometime soon. > > Can't they all just use org.w3c.dom? We cannot make the interface names > overlap anyway. I think one module name for all of the Web platform would work fine for programming languages joining to the Web platform only recently. But for languages like Java, I guess it would be nice to have a rule for obtaining module names. I'm curious how directory name (cssom, workers, postmsg, etc.) is assigned for each specification today. Can we use the same name as a module name in most of the cases? It wouldn't work for cssom, cssom-vew, though. - Shiki > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 23:40:16 UTC