On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
wrote:
Meanwhile, what we need is concrete bug reports of specific instances
where the existing WebIDL description of key interfaces is done in a way
that precludes a pure ECMAScript implementation of the function.
Is there even agreement that is a goal?
I personally think the catch-all pattern which Brendan mentioned is quite
convenient and I do not think it would make sense to suddenly stop using
it. Also, the idea of removing the feature from Web IDL so that future
specifications cannot use it is something I disagree with since having it
in Web IDL simplifies writing specifications for the (legacy) platform and
removes room for error.
Having Web IDL is a huge help since it clarifies how a bunch of things map
to ECMAScript. E.g. how the XMLHttpRequest constructor object is exposed,
how you can prototype XMLHttpRequest, that objects implementing
XMLHttpRequest also have all the members from EventTarget, etc. I'm fine
with fiddling with the details, but rewriting everything from scratch
seems like a non-starter. Especially when there is not even a proposal on
the table.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
