ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination
mjs at apple.com
Thu Sep 24 07:33:57 PDT 2009
On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> At the upcoming TPAC, there is an opportunity for F2F coordination
> between these two groups, and the time slot between 10 O'Clock and
> Noon on Friday has been suggested for this.
It would be nice if the coordination time slot wasn't at a time that
the HTML WG is meeting, and perhaps was on a day the Web Apps WG is
meeting or the plenary day. I say this because:
A) It would be poor form for Sam and myself to miss one of the HTML WG
sessions, but I suspect both of us will be interested in the Web
Apps / ECMA TC 39 joint session. Or at least I am, having a great
interest in Web IDL.
B) Some Web Apps WG members may be attending TPAC only for the days
Web Apps is meeting WG.
Thus, a time slot on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of TPAC would be
> To help prime the pump, here are four topics suggested by ECMA TC39
> for discussion. On these and other topics, there is no need to wait
> for the TPAC, discussion can begin now on the es-discuss mailing list.
> - - -
> The current WebIDL binding to ECMAScript is based on ES3... this
> needs to more closely track to the evolution of ES, in particular it
> needs to be updated to ES5 w.r.t the Meta Object Protocol. In the
> process, we should discuss whether this work continues in the W3C,
> is done as a joint effort with ECMA, or moves to ECMA entirely.
> - - -
> A concern specific to HTML5 uses WebIDL in a way that precludes
> implementation of these objects in ECMAScript (i.e., they can only
> be implemented as host objects), and an explicit goal of ECMA TC39
> has been to reduce such. Ideally ECMA TC39 and the W3C HTML WG
> would jointly develop guidance on developing web APIs, and the W3C
> HTML WG would apply that guidance in HTML5.
> Meanwhile, I would encourage members of ECMA TC 39 who are aware of
> specific issues to open bug reports:
> And I would encourage members of the HTML WG who are interested in
> this topic to read up on the following emails (suggested by Brendan
> and the rest of that thread
> (not the transactional behavior, which is out -- just the
> interaction with Array's custom [[Put]]).
> on an "ArrayLike interface" with references to DOM docs at the
> about a WebIDL float terminal value issue.
> - - -
> There are larger (and less precise concerns at this time) about
> execution scope (e.g., presumptions of locking behavior,
> particularly by HTML5 features such as local storage). The two
> groups need to work together to convert these concerns into
> actionable suggestions for improvement.
> - - -
> We should take steps to address the following "willful violation":
> the this keyword in the global scope must return the Window object's
> WindowProxy object.
> specification requires that the this keyword in the global scope
> return the global object, but this is not compatible with the
> design prevalent in implementations as specified herein. [ECMA262]
> - Sam Ruby
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss