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/>
