It would be pretty nice if the language bindings of WebIDL were
available in pure ES, where possible. To some degree, that is not
currently possible (in ES3), but it will be a lot better in ES5. I
think it might actually be possible to get a large degree of
completion just using the JavaScript avai
On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
There is no old version.
Right, this is v1. What previous W3C API specifications had relied on
was either
On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
Wow! The amount of email on Web IDL over the last few days has been
amazing!
I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the
Web IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one
doc, ES 3/5 bind
On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 01:19 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
If at all possible I'd rather it went to LC ASAP, and if needed
that new stuff be done in a branched document.
Based on the conversation s
Hi, Folks-
I've now created the scripting coordination list.
It was suggested that the name "public-scripting" would be too likely to
invite off-topic posts from people with script-authoring questions, so
we struck a compromise between descriptiveness and discoverability
versus length. Thus,
>-Original Message-
>From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
>boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
>>
>> There is no old version.
>
>Right, this is v1. What previous W3C API specifications had relied on
>was either OMG IDL, or the common lore understanding that pe
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Any update on this Jonas?
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:21:17 +0100, Alexey Proskuryakov
> wrote:
>>
>> 20.03.2009, в 1:52, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
>>
>>> I don't know how easy it is with current technologies to do this
>>> reliably. Or h
On Sep 28, 2009, at 17:23 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:20:27 +0200, Mark S. Miller
wrote:
Good point. I was indeed thinking only of HTML5. Other things being
equal, it would seem the best way for these other projects to avoid
blocking on
WebIDL would be for them to rely
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Lachlan Hunt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And overload the querySelector() and querySelectorAll() methods to also
>>> accept a Selector object as the selector parameter.
>>>
>>> createSelector
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:20:27 +0200, Mark S. Miller
wrote:
Good point. I was indeed thinking only of HTML5. Other things being
equal, it would seem the best way for these other projects to avoid
blocking on
WebIDL would be for them to rely only on the previous version of WebIDL.
Of course,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. WebIDL isn't just for HTML5, it's
> used throughout WebApps and DAP, and by a number of other groups as well,
> which have deliverables at various levels of completion. By depending on
> WebIDL, a l
#1 & #2 are the same issue; we haven't reached consensus yet, though
as Marcos says in his response on #1, we are in agreement over what we
are trying to achieve with this part of the spec - we just need to
figure out which of the two approaches to take.
My preference is to replace "origin
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:17:06 +0200, Zhiheng Wang
wrote:
Updated to incorporate the feedbacks. (Sorry for the long pause. I've
been in absence for the past couple weeks.)
1) the window.pageTiming attribute should be available for each
browsing context, not only the top-level one.
You need
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:40:20 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Wow! The amount of email on Web IDL over the last few days has been
amazing!
I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the Web
IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one doc, ES
3/5 binding
Hi Art,
On Sep 28, 2009, at 14:40 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the
Web IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one
doc, ES 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate
doc, etc. Or a core/non-core (e
Hi All,
Wow! The amount of email on Web IDL over the last few days has been
amazing!
I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the
Web IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one
doc, ES 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate
Any update on this Jonas?
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:21:17 +0100, Alexey Proskuryakov
wrote:
20.03.2009, в 1:52, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
I don't know how easy it is with current technologies to do this
reliably. Or how big chances are that we can fix those technologies in
the future to not wo
All,
In case you did not know, Scott is now a member of WebApps. Welcome
Scott!
I'd like to understand the status of the "The widget Interface" (TWI)
[TWI] spec and what, if any, issues are still open?
I've noted these two exchanges from Scott and Marcos and I don't see
consensus:
1.
Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
And overload the querySelector() and querySelectorAll() methods to also
accept a Selector object as the selector parameter.
createSelector would allow the browser to parse and compile the selector and
store it, much like
On Sep 27, 2009, at 21:44 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon
wrote:
I would tend to be rather in disfavour of anything that might cause
WebIDL to be delayed in any way. I also think that keeping the ES3
binding is useful (in the short term at least) if on
On Sep 28, 2009, at 01:19 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
If at all possible I'd rather it went to LC ASAP, and if needed
that new stuff be done in a branched document.
Based on the conversation so far, I expect Web IDL in roughly its
current sta
On Sep 26, 2009, at 08:43 , Yehuda Katz wrote:
Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
implementors).
It is a worthy goal, but it won
22 matches
Mail list logo
