ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

Anne van Kesteren annevk at
Fri Sep 25 02:57:59 PDT 2009

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys at>  
> Meanwhile, what we need is concrete bug reports of specific instances  
> where the existing WebIDL description of key interfaces is done in a way  
> that precludes a pure ECMAScript implementation of the function.

Is there even agreement that is a goal?

I personally think the catch-all pattern which Brendan mentioned is quite  
convenient and I do not think it would make sense to suddenly stop using  
it. Also, the idea of removing the feature from Web IDL so that future  
specifications cannot use it is something I disagree with since having it  
in Web IDL simplifies writing specifications for the (legacy) platform and  
removes room for error.

Having Web IDL is a huge help since it clarifies how a bunch of things map  
to ECMAScript. E.g. how the XMLHttpRequest constructor object is exposed,  
how you can prototype XMLHttpRequest, that objects implementing  
XMLHttpRequest also have all the members from EventTarget, etc. I'm fine  
with fiddling with the details, but rewriting everything from scratch  
seems like a non-starter. Especially when there is not even a proposal on  
the table.

Anne van Kesteren

More information about the es-discuss mailing list