ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

Sam Ruby rubys at
Fri Sep 25 03:09:03 PDT 2009

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys at> wrote:
>> 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?

This was expressed by ECMA TC39 as a goal.  There is no agreement as
of yet to this goal by the HTML WG.

I'm simply suggesting that they way forward at this time is via
specifics, ideally in the form of bug reports.

> 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.

I agree that either getting a proposal on the table or bug reports is
the right next step.  I further agree that removal of function and/or
a wholesale switch away from Web IDL is likely to be a non-starter.

> Anne van Kesteren

- Sam Ruby

More information about the es-discuss mailing list