Hi,
here are a few thoughts on the editorial notes that are in the draft.
First: since editors seem to be liking ednotes, would folks see value
in having ReSpec generate anchors for them so we could easily link to
them?
• "What about non-ECMAScript implementations?"
I think Cameron's idea of having a createXHR() available to the
languages that may need it could be useful indeed.
• "Need to define which IDL specification we are going to conform to,
if any."
This came up on xml-dev, where OMG IDL was blamed for the fact that
we have createElement() and createElementNS() in the DOM instead of
just one (there may be other reasons). I am all for forgetting about
OMG IDL, but I think we need to consider the following:
- some folks generate Java interfaces from the IDLs. I think we're
safe so long as we generate a binding from what we have (which is
easy to add to ReSpec, I can do it)
- some implementations (Mozilla?) seem to use OMG IDL. Would they
be fine with something else, or with hacking the something else
themselves, or if we generated something more kosher and let them do
whatever workaround they do to get around it for stuff they already
support?
- the stuff that's in the interface definition should be formal to
some point. If we don't use OMG IDL, it would be really best if we
defined whatever it is we use. We can keep it simple, but we might
not be able to dodge writing a Note describing it.
• "What if languages don't have functions? Perhaps this should be an
EventListener?"
What DOM 3 Events does currently is that in the Javascript binding it
make EventListener be a Function (and doesn't give it the handleEvent
field, which is debatable but would work well here). I think we
should consider this option.
• "What about HEAD requests?"
This is worth a test of what current implementations do. Assuming a
void it would be best to go to 3 once (so that we're always
guaranteeing that 3 is touched at least once for any complete
request, it makes scripting with it simpler), and hop immediately to 4.
• "What about PUT and DELETE?"
We were fairly agreed that these should be supported at the f2f,
unless there is a good reason not to (e.g. current implementations
skip them). In fact our resolution was that (again, unless we bumped
into something during testing) all methods should be allowed,
including the DAV ones which would be very cool for some uses, for
instance CMS UIs.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
