On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
implementors). Perhaps the IDL version could be part of an addendum,
and something
What "something"?
with less historical and conceptual baggage be used
inline? Or is that too much work?
Do the work, it's the only way to get to "something" and make it stick.
I don't think we should continue cross-posting like this to three
standards groups' lists. Yes, old and layered specs are often complex,
even over-complicated. No, we can't fix that complexity in the case of
WebIDL by rewriting the extant interface descriptions in ES. As Maciej
noted, doing so would cost ~10x the source lines, and beyond verbosity
would be incredibly unclear and error-prone.
Those who seek to replace WebIDL must first grok what it means, how it
is used. To do that, I suggest trimming cross-posts, and even before
replying, reading up on the relevant WebIDL docs and list. Once you've
braced yourself for this process, and gotten further into it, I am
sure that a Q&A process will work better.
You are absolutely correct that the specs are complex and have gaps.
Every engineer who has worked on a web-compatible browser has had to
learn this the hard way. I don't expect the Web to be "done" but I do
think better specs will close gaps and reduce some of the complexity
over time. That's the hope behind this overlong, cross-posted thread,
anyway. I'll shut up now.
/be
