I was specifically responding to the idea that the spec has historical baggage that isn't easy to ascertain. If we can make that sort of thing explicit and perhaps create a more accessible guide to WebIDL, most of my concerns would be quelled.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2009, at 08:43 , 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). >> > > It is a worthy goal, but it won't be possible to make it so that everyone > finds it easy and quick to understand. The current syntax is not familiar > only to implementers, whoever has looked at DOM, WebAPI, SVG, etc. specs for > documentation over the past decade will find it very familiar. In fact, > WebIDL was started in part to formalise the notation that was used > colloquially in W3C specifications, sometimes in a way that was OMG IDL > compliant, but other times in manners more creative than that. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ > > > > -- Yehuda Katz Developer | Engine Yard (ph) 718.877.1325
