Re: Modules for IDL fragments in W3C specifications (was: Re: An import statement for Web IDL)
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Cameron McCormack wrote: With that in mind, here is a mostly concrete proposal: * All W3C specs will place interfaces and exceptions at the top level scope (i.e., not in a module). Based on this, I haven't added the text you suggested earlier in the same e-mail about the HTML5 spec being in an 'html' module. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Modules for IDL fragments in W3C specifications (was: Re: An import statement for Web IDL)
Cameron McCormack: With that in mind, here is a mostly concrete proposal: * All W3C specs will place interfaces and exceptions at the top level scope (i.e., not in a module). Ian Hickson: Based on this, I haven't added the text you suggested earlier in the same e-mail about the HTML5 spec being in an 'html' module. That’s acceptable, assuming we can get agreement that the above proposal is one that all specs will use. Perhaps I should add it as a non-normative section in Web IDL to help it get wider review when we go to LC. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
