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
Paddy Byers:
WAC does refer to interfaces defined in one module from another
module; however, we have not been using scoped names for these
references - we use the unqualified interface name. More or less
every WAC module does this.
Cameron McCormack:
If WAC is already considering these names
(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 Paddy,
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?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Paddy,
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)?
I don't
I don't believe the concern is about changes to Web IDL breaking any running
code (is that possible in any case? Web IDL is just a specification
language...).
But it could break specifications (affect them in a way that does impact
the code which implements them). Future versions of a spec that
Marcos,
So OK, if we just remove the module keyword from the
accelerometerhttp://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html
definition, you're saying that will have no effect upon any aspect of the
implementation of the accelerometer API?
In terms of the need for the module
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
On 13/08/11 10:49 AM, Paddy Byers wrote:
WAC does refer to interfaces defined in one module from another module;
however, we have not been using scoped names for these references - we
use the unqualified interface name. More or less every WAC module does this.
If WAC is already considering
[I’m CCing public-script-coord and setting Reply-To to there. If future
LC comments on Web IDL could be made there, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.]
Anne van Kesteren:
Having everything in the same module seems fine for the web platform.
FWIW, I agree, it’s a complication I have come around to
Having everything in the same module seems fine for the web platform.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
12 matches
Mail list logo
