On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:05:36 +0100, Kartikaya Gupta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see the change in the XHR2 draft, but not the XHR draft.
Forgot to commit, should be fixed now.
I was not planning on doing this. It makes the IDL unreadable in my
opinion and I believe it is not required in Web IDL (and if it is we
should change that :-)).
It does hamper readability somewhat, but it also increases usefulness. I
guess the question is whether the IDL is informative or normative. If
it's normative, then I think the exceptions should be added for
correctness.
It is normative, as in combination with Web IDL it defines how languages
bindings are supposed to work.
The [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes are much worse for
readability, IMO.
True, but they have a nice property (less prose needs to be written in the
specification).
And on the topic of IDL, I assume you're sticking with your plan of not
specifying a module/namespace?
It seems like clutter to me. Can't we have a default module all W3C
specifications use unless otherwise specified?
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
