Re: WebIDL Plans
On 10 Apr 2015, at 18:49, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 4/10/15 8:53 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: * Everything from old v1 expect ArrayClass which is not used, nor implemented anywhere. It's implemented in Gecko and used for both DOMRectList and MediaList in Gecko, fwiw. I'm not saying we should include it, just correcting the factual statement. I remember ArrayClass removed from NodeList for the reason of lack of implementations, and even plans for implementation, glad to see it’s not dead, and I indeed missed CSSOM when I checked what parts of IDL was used in some specifications. At least it means there is no need to remove ArrayClass from the edcopy :) * Add PromiseT, Iterators, NewObject, Dictionary constructors, Buffer types (USVString and ByteString as well, depending on their status) This is pretty hard to evaluate for me coming from the perspective of knowing what's in v2. Which things are _not_ included then? maplike/setlike, right? Anything else? Currently maplike/setlike/ RegExp [Unscopeable] [PrimaryGlobal] [ImplicitThis], most probably iterable. But of course this is also subject to the number of bugs attached to them, issues with test etc... So many things will still be considered “at risk”. I didn’t see any trace of [ImplicitThis] either, so that will make it hard to test (the Window interface given in the example is no longer using it). Is someone actually using dictionary constructors somewhere? Are they implemented by anyone? Ah indeed no, and now I wonder why I added it in my list… (so as no specs seems to use them, I don’t think there are implementations around). -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Re: WebIDL Plans
On 4/14/15 8:22 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: I remember ArrayClass removed from NodeList for the reason of lack of implementations, and even plans for implementation It was removed because as things stand it's not web-compatible. Once @@isConcatSpreadable exists in implementations, we could and should reinstate ArrayClass on NodeList, I expect, while making it concat-spreadable at the same time. Certainly I plan to do so in Gecko. Thank you for the summary of stuff we're considering unstable for now. Comments inline. Currently maplike/setlike/ RegExp [Unscopeable] [PrimaryGlobal] [ImplicitThis], most probably iterable. OK. So I'm fine with maplike/setlike being considered unstable at the moment, because they are. I have no strong opinion on RegExp, since I suspect in practice no one uses it anywhere so far. [Unscopeable] is not implemented in UAs yet, but doing that blocks implementing some DOM APIs, fwiw. [PrimaryGlobal] is needed for [Exposed] stuff to make any sense. I see no reason not to keep it; it's supported in Gecko fwiw. [ImplicitThis] is, I agree, unstable in terms of IDL syntax. The functionality is obviously needed for basic web compat; I think we should just make it a priority to get this part sorted out and stabilized. But of course this is also subject to the number of bugs attached to them, issues with test etc... Sure. So many things will still be considered “at risk”. That's fine. I didn’t see any trace of [ImplicitThis] either, so that will make it hard to test (the Window interface given in the example is no longer using it). It's trivial to test its effects. If this script puts up an alert: script alert(Hello); /script then something like [ImplicitThis] is being done somewhere, whether the specs call for it or not. What that something is should probably be specced, of course. ;) Ah indeed no, and now I wonder why I added it in my list… (so as no specs seems to use them, I don’t think there are implementations around). I'm not aware of any implementations, correct. -Boris
Re: WebIDL Plans
On 4/12/15 2:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org wrote: We are planning to move WebIDL forward to REC, here is the plan to achieve that: Who is we? Apparently this wasn't even discussed with the editors. I consider Yves' posting [1] as a followup to a related started at the end of last year [2]. Naturally, feedback on [1] is welcome from all (Boris, Cameron, Everyone). -Thanks, ArtB [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0078.html [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0515.html
Re: WebIDL Plans
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org wrote: We are planning to move WebIDL forward to REC, here is the plan to achieve that: Who is we? Apparently this wasn't even discussed with the editors. Why would such a thing even be discussed in private? There's still a lot of outstanding bug reports asking for breaking changes to syntax that would prevent any kind of stabilization. And I feel pretty strongly we need to fix them as we keep getting feedback that IDL is hard to comprehend. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
