On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:12:50 +1100, Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since ExtendedAttributeIdentifier and friends will never appear in a
> derivation of Definitions, the main parsing of the IDL fragment wonât
> have ambiguities. The second pass, where the extended attribute for
Kartikaya Gupta:
> > Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but while implementing I
> > realized that having both [TheExtendedAttribute=identifier] and
> > [TheExtendedAttribute=ScopedName] leads to an ambiguous grammar, since
> > [foo=bar] can be interpreted as both.
Cameron McCormack:
> Indeed, t
Kartikaya Gupta:
> The example in the java-modules section has a
> typo; it says "org.foo.ext.FooDocument" instead of
> "org.foo.ext.ExtendedFooDocument".
Thanks, fixed.
> Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but while implementing I
> realized that having both [TheExtendedAttribute=identifier] a
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:12:13 +1100, Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Done:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-modules
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#Prefix
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#java-modules
>
>
The example in the java-modules section ha
Cameron McCormack:
> > OK. The hard coded prefix approach I suggested above would still have a
> > mechanism for overriding that. For example:
> >
> > module dom { interface Node { … }; };
> >
> > module svg { interface SVGElement : Element { … }; };
> >
> > [Prefix=org]
> > module ac
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:16:07 +1100, Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kartikaya Gupta:
> > I would prefer not hard-coding a package prefix. The implementation I
> > just finished writing basically auto-generates a bunch of stuff from
> > the DOM IDL files. Since it worked pretty we
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 [
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 to
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:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#J
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:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#JavaPackage
So in sele
10 matches
Mail list logo
