Hi,
Cameron McCormack:
WAC is using modules solely as a grouping mechanism, and not as a
namespacing mechanism, as far as I can see. So it seems like no actual
important functionality would be lost if we dropped modules from Web
IDL. If all you need to do is group some definitions together
(Previously send to public-script-coord but I was asked to forward to
webapps.)
Hi,
Two things to be aware of if we drop the feature:
One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC. Although I think their
spec stabilised well before now, so presumably they’re dependent on an
earlier WD of
Hi,,
If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer comply
with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL
extension?
Of
Hi,
E.g., The Accelerometer API and just remove module from the title
and from the WebIDL. I don't think any spec in WAC references any
other IDL in another module in the way that WebIDL defines... so there
would be no impact.
WAC does refer to interfaces defined in one module from another
Hi,
I have been trying to identify the term author in Widget specs.
I think we're in danger of getting into details that are irrelevant for the
PC specification.
This spec should define what information is asserted by the presence of the
author and distributor signatures.
It is up to a
