Jans, there is definitely a plan to define a JavaScript (or, if you prefer, ECMAScript or WebIDL). The issue is what our general attitude should be v.a.v. Java and Python and C and...
Ivan
On Jan 11, 2011, at 18:15 , Jans Aasman wrote:
> Hi Ivan: Happy New Year to you too. We at Franz definitely have a very
> particular need for some standardization wrt JavaScript. A customer paid us
> to build a JavaScript compiler that can run in the server and because of the
> lack of a standard we just came up with some random API. It would be great
> if we could have a standard for both the client and server that made some
> sense together. We would be more than happy to help with the process.
>
> Jans
>
>
> <moz-screenshot-37.png>
>
> On 1/11/2011 4:05 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> first of all, a very happy new year to you all!
>>
>> The reason of this mail is some sort of an informal poll. I am not sure how
>> closely you followed this, but there has been quite some discussion in the
>> past few months on the necessity (or not...) of a standard RDF API for Web
>> Application developers. In practice this means a standard API for
>> {Java|ECMA}Script, with a particular attention to the needs and programming
>> style of that community. In parallel to this discussion the RDFa Working
>> Group[1] had been working on an RDFa API for a while and, in the course of
>> this work, it became clear that it would be properly done only if a proper
>> RDF API for Javascript is also defined. So the current thinking at W3C is
>> that we would slightly recharter the current RDFa Working Group to publish
>> that RDF API part as a Recommendation, too.
>>
>> However... that obviously raises the question of non-Javascript API-s to
>> RDF. The reason I contact you all is because you have all been involved in
>> some way or other with API definition and/or development for other
>> languages, let that be C, Java, Python, PHP, or Lisp. It is not clear at
>> this moment whether such an RDF API work, as envisaged in the RDFa Working
>> Group, should take into account other programming languages actively from
>> the start (ie, define something much more generic) or whether it should
>> really concentrate on Javascript only. There are a number of issues here,
>> including non-technical ones (the effort it would take both for the
>> developer and the application community to migrate to a new API is the
>> obvious and huge issue). I for myself believe that the non-technical issues
>> are the really tough ones; my strictly _personal_ feeling at this point is
>> that the effort in the Working group should concentrate on the needs of
>> Javascript/Web Application only, and let oth
>> er programming language communities decide whether they want to take that
>> work into account or not. But maybe my judgement on the community's need is
>> wrong. That is why it would be very helpful for us to get some feedback from
>> you...
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> P.S. I may have missed somebody in this list. Feel free to add, in your
>> reply, anybody else whom you think should be consulted...
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home:
>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key:
>> http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>
>> FOAF:
>> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
