> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-June/008458.html > expressed an intention to move WebKit IDL syntax closer to > Web IDL syntax, with corresponding bug > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398 > > However, there doesn't seem to be any progress on this.
We have always been trying to align WebKitIDL with WebIDL. In particular, last month we have removed or renamed 70~ IDL attributes so that they align the WebIDL spec as much as possible (https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlobCOyvTnPKdG1iaFJhNVZGMWI3eWZid0ZRVFdxU3c#gid=0). That being said, aligning WebKitIDL with WebIDL is not the only objective of WebKitIDL. Another important objective of WebKitIDL is to generate as much binding code as possible, because hand-written custom binding code is likely to be buggy. This is the reason why WebKitIDL has introduced so many IDL attributes that are not defined in the WebIDL spec (e.g. [ActiveDOMObject], [Custom], [CheckSecurityForNode], etc...so many:-). > I am interested in moving this forward. Is it okay? It is _really_ okay. If you find IDL attributes that should be aligned with the spec or can be cleaned up, you can fix them. Please file a bug and cc me. I am happy to take a look. -- Kentaro Hara, Tokyo, Japan (http://haraken.info) _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
