IDE Minutes 2008 12-16
- Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
- Phil Berkland, IBM
- Kin Blas, Adobe
- Lori Hylan-Cho, Aptana
- Nitin Dahyabhai, IBM
Jon: We had agreed previously to <class static="true">. Lori had second thoughts, and I proposed an <object> tag.
Lori: I seconded Jon's proposal.
Lori: Like <class>, but no constructor.
Jon: I'm not sure about all of the details, but that's the key concept.
Phil: What was the problem with static attribute?
Lori: Right now we don't have any way to have a class without a constructor. So we started wondering if there was a better way for expressing singletons. Having a separate elements will make the schema more straightforward.
Jon: I wasn't excited about the static attribute. It gave the class element two personalities.
Lori: And people wouldn't understand it.
Lori: Any objections to <object>?
Phil: I wonder if <object> is the best name. I guess it's fine with me, but maybe <singleton> would be better.
Phil: I don't care.
Lori: I could go either way. I like the simplicity of <object> and I think the semantic value of <singleton> is more important.
Jon: <singleton> is fine with me.
Kin: Is this a way to describe an object that might exist, such as a global instance of a class?
Jon: In that case, maybe you have a <singleton> for the global instance with a datatype that points to the class?
Lori/Jon: Need to think about that one.
Kin: Is this mostly for browser-native features or global instances?
Lori: The latter
Jon: Yes, but actually either, and the impetus for the feature came from something a bit different. Some Ajax libraries create global objects that have APIs on them. For example, window.OpenAjax is a global object. Sometimes these global objects function as namespaces, but if they have methods, they function more as singletons.
Lori: What about the Math object?
Jon: Describe with <singleton>.
Jon: How about I put <singleton> into the spec with red-colored comments to say that we are still working on the details?
Examples in spec
Kin: Can we add real-world examples to the spec? For example, how features from jQuery would be represented.
Lori: Would love that. In fact, we need to have that.
Kin: Sometimes I'm challenged by the spec
Lori: In our experience, people trying to use the spec make mistakes
Phil: We said every element should include examples
Jon: Yes. I have tried to add examples when I clean up a section, but lots of sections still need cleanup
Nitin: Should include examples from the Ajax frameworks
Lori: jQuery will have examples. Dojo is working on it. Ext is on the fence.
Kin: Spec readability will affect adoption.
Jon: I am planning to do editing between now and our next phone call in January.
Rechartering phone call
Jon: Reminder that there will be an IDE WG rechartering phone call on Friday. I'll send a reminder in email with call-in information.