From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
> The other benefit would be having only one specification being responsible
> for the translation to ECMAScript since thus far that's not exactly been a
> stable source.
Well, but HTML is so intimately tied up with ES already due to how it has to
execute scripts and integrate with the event loop. I don't think we're going to
be able to isolate the impact to just IDL.
> We would likely still need IDL to define these as IDL types somehow so they
> can be used in IDL blocks. Or make it clear in IDL that other specifications
> can
> define IDL types too without using "interface ...
> {};".
Since these are only used as return types and not as arguments, just using
`object` or `any` would work, since return types in IDL are just documentation
anyway.
