- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:05:20 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 10:54 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 14/05/2013 03:09 , Cameron McCormack wrote: > > I am not sure where the various IDL parser tools come in to this. There > > isn't a conformance class for IDL processors in the spec, and I'm not > > sure whether the grammar in the spec being actually parseable is > > something that is interesting to demonstrate by having programs that can > > do that. At least because we would then need to have some tests for > > those programs to show that they are correct. > > I don't think that we need to make a conformance class, test suite, > implementation report, or whatever else for parsers. I think the way to > use this information is to mention it on the Director's call as > additional evidence that there's a healthy, interoperable ecosystem > around WebIDL. +1. As long as widlproc and webidl2.js can consume the idl from the specifications, we're in a good shape and we can prove this easily. Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 21:54:21 UTC