Re: XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:52:46 +0200, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG-IDL. I'm not sure what you mean by us[ing] the bindings of OMG-IDL, but I don't think we are. The IDL in the draft is there because it's intuitive to people who are used to the DOM specifications and the such. We're not trying to conform to OMG IDL simply because it's not powerful enough to capture what we need to express. Bindings is the word that is used in the document :-) Actually. Language bindings is what's used in the document. I think that a document that tries to standardize something and itself doesn't conform or adhere other standards is simply nonsense. The IDL is simply non normative and illustrates the API. The actual language bindings (not yet included in the document) will define the exact mapping to ECMAScript and perhaps other languages. I don't see the problem. If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it directly in EcmaScript. I'm not sure Ecmascript would be a good option here, but I don't have a strong opinion. The best option would be to document a Web API IDL but that's quite a lot of work. Why ECMAScript is not a good option? All the DOM developers and Web Developers know the language and in fact the APIs you are trying to standardize are yet defined in browsers and developers are used to use them from EcmaScript. As far as I know ECMAScript has no notion of IDLs... Anyway, I agree with Robin, we need a Web API IDL document. Unfortunately, I have no clue as how to write such a thing. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative
Robin Berjon escribió: On Jul 24, 2006, at 16:24, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca wrote: It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG-IDL. I'm not sure what you mean by us[ing] the bindings of OMG-IDL, but I don't think we are. The IDL in the draft is there because it's intuitive to people who are used to the DOM specifications and the such. We're not trying to conform to OMG IDL simply because it's not powerful enough to capture what we need to express. Bindings is the word that is used in the document :-) . I think is a mistake, they are referring to language mappings, that is, the rules that govern how each element in IDL is mapped to an element in a concrete programming language. If you don't conform to something it's better not to use it. It makes nonsense. What a dialect of IDL are you inventing? I think that a document that tries to standardize something and itself doesn't conform or adhere other standards is simply nonsense. If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it directly in EcmaScript. I'm not sure Ecmascript would be a good option here, but I don't have a strong opinion. The best option would be to document a Web API IDL but that's quite a lot of work. Why ECMAScript is not a good option? All the DOM developers and Web Developers know the language and in fact the APIs you are trying to standardize are yet defined in browsers and developers are used to use them from EcmaScript. --Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Re: XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative
On Jul 24, 2006, at 16:24, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca wrote: It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG- IDL. I'm not sure what you mean by us[ing] the bindings of OMG-IDL, but I don't think we are. The IDL in the draft is there because it's intuitive to people who are used to the DOM specifications and the such. We're not trying to conform to OMG IDL simply because it's not powerful enough to capture what we need to express. If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it directly in EcmaScript. I'm not sure Ecmascript would be a good option here, but I don't have a strong opinion. The best option would be to document a Web API IDL but that's quite a lot of work. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative
Dear all, I have seen the the following statement: in the working draft [1] that specifies the XMLHttpRequestObject "A more complete description of what can be done with XMLHttpRequest can be found in the IDL below and its associated details. The IDL is non-normative and does not intend to conform to [OMGIDL]. Only the language bindings are normative." It really sounds strange to me. To specify something in IDL that is not OMG-IDL-conformant but you are going to use the bindings of OMG-IDL. Strange. If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it directly in EcmaScript. IDL is accurate when you have to deal with multiple programming languages, but this is not the case. Best Regards Jose Manuel Cantera Senior Technologist Telefonica I+D [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
Re: XmlHttpRequest IDL non normative
+1 On 7/24/06, José Manuel Cantera Fonseca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are not going to use the sintax and semantics of OMG-IDL it could be better not specifying the object in IDL. You could do it directly in EcmaScript. IDL is accurate when you have to deal with multiple programming languages, but this is not the case.
