Cameron McCormack wrote:
Lachlan Hunt:
It seems from the Java bindings section of Web IDL that the way to
define modules and how they're mapped to Java packages isn't yet very
stable.
I’ve added a way to specify the Java package naming method now:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:42:08 +1100, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively: is it worth hard coding a Java package prefix into the
spec, so that [JavaPackage] is not normally needed? (This could map a
module called âdomâ to org.w3c.dom, and other modules at the top
[Resending with minor corrections and to get tracker's attention and include
public-webapps]
I just wanted to float an outline of a not very baked idea for trying to solve
the widget referencing problem with a media-type/fragment identifer approach
- those IMO being the 'right' extension
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to float an outline of a not very baked idea for trying to
solve the widget referencing problem with a media-type/fragment identifer
approach - those IMO being the 'right' extension
Lachlan Hunt:
Could it just be called [Package] instead of [JavaPackage]? The
ECMAScript-specific extended attributes like [Callback] and
[Undefined] don't contain the name of the language in their names, why
should it do so for Java?
My reasoning for naming it [JavaPackage] rather than
Cameron McCormack:
* In section 6, I don’t think it’s necessary to explicitly mention
undefined, since it’s already handled by the annotation in the
IDL. If you do want to include this in the prose, I think it
needs to be qualified to say that this applies to an ECMAScript
