[whatwg] Java language bindings for HTML5
wo.kuehn at enbw.com
Wed May 19 02:41:41 PDT 2010
In the future, I see a lot of libraries soft-implementing WebIDL interfaces
without binding against a standard interface, may it be Java, C# or C++.
This is not good for many reasons. The most obvious are that consumers cannot
exchange implementations, and that implementors have no tool support to check
the conformance of their implementation.
A quick search reveals the following implementations for the
HTML5 Canvas Element alone:
Other static typed languages
Agreeing on a name space does have far reaching consequences, as the example of
in DOM Level 1 shows.
Because of a subtle change in the api the w3c chose to rename the package to
in DOM Level 2.
However, some 8 years later, the JRE only ships with org.w3c.dom.html,
and the xerces DOM implementation and HTML parser do only support Level 1.
Web-centric use cases for implementing in static typed languages are
* UA implementations such as WebKit or Gecko
* Automating browsers for testing and debugging
>Von: Shiki Okasaka [mailto:shiki at google.com]
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 05:22
>An: Kühn Wolfgang
>Cc: Anne van Kesteren
>Betreff: Re: [whatwg] Java language bindings for HTML5
>I think this is a very good point. Would you mind sending this to
>whatwg at lists.whatwg.org?
>I wonder if we apply this rule to HTML5, what will be the likely
>module name for HTML today; html5, html101, or html2010? Any guesses?
>The interface versioning is a very important topic for the static
>languages like Java, C++. But I guess this would be mainly the problem
>of the programming language side; since HTML is growing very rapidly
>these days, and browsers often implement draft specifications, we
>cannot simply wait for the drafts become the recommendations. I'm very
>interested in what would be the best way to dealing with that with the
> - Shiki
>On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Kühn Wolfgang
><wo.kuehn at enbw.com> wrote:
>> addition is possible. Modification is a problem. For example
>there was a change
>> in the semantic of HTMLImageElement from DOM Level 1 to Level 2:
>> String getHeight()
>> int getHeight()
>> These two definitions are not compatible and must be in
>> Greetings, Wolfgang
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk at opera.com]
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Mai 2010 08:28
>> An: Kühn Wolfgang; Shiki Okasaka
>> Cc: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
>> Betreff: Re: [whatwg] Java language bindings for HTML5
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:38:21 +0200, Shiki Okasaka
><shiki at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Kühn Wolfgang
><wo.kuehn at enbw.com> wrote:
>>>> As for the html5 elements, will there be a new package
>>> This is our concern, too. Historically each W3C specification
>>> introduced its own module name. However, the recent specifications
>>> tend to omit the module specification in the IDL definition.
>>> In the IDL files we used above, we chose module names that
>seem to be
>>> practical, but those are not part of the standard. Hopefully more
>>> people will revisit this issue sometime soon.
>> Can't they all just use org.w3c.dom? We cannot make the
>> overlap anyway.
>> Anne van Kesteren
More information about the whatwg