4 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes
bzbarsky at MIT.EDU
Thu Jun 12 05:16:30 PDT 2014
On 6/12/14, 4:53 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>> DH: Problem: people explicitly argue against better interface design
>> because it's not convenient/expressible in WebIDL.
To the extent that it's the latter, we should fix WebIDL.
To the extent that it's people just being lazy, that's just not acceptable.
Obviously we should try to make the path of least resistance be good
interface design; WebIDL aimed at that from the start. It doesn't help
that the concept of "good interface design" is not universally agreed on
and not time-invariant....
So with that in mind, we want something that will allow us to express
existing DOM APIs (which are by and large not "good interface design" in
various ways), something that allows us to express whatever people
actually want to express (and we better come to some agreement about
what that is), and a way to transition from the current WebIDL to the
new thing with minimal pain in some way, both in terms of rewriting all
the existing specs that use WebIDL and browser implementations that do.
This all would have been way easier 3-4 years ago when WebIDL was first
being put together. :(
More information about the es-discuss