Re: Basic processes

On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Clint Hill wrote:

> +1.
> 
> I too think that involving "polyfill" at this time could be over-reach for the goal of Extensible Web Group. I feel we should focus on the "prollyfill" practice which is forward thinking and standards driving. Polyfill is more reverse direction and frankly doesn't need any help at the moment IMO. 
> 
> What is important about this group is to help coagulate the efforts of authors and browser implementors so that neither is impeded by the other.
> 
> I don't feel we've sharpened the concept into a bite sized meal. I've used this to help articulate the difference to co-workers in the last few days and this is what made sense to them:
> 
> Polyfill === "normalizing known/accepted standard across browsers"
> Prollyfill === "driving new/uncharted standard for browsers"
> 
> 
> If that understanding of the 2 is clear, then our group should be certainly focused on the latter. Which IMO would mean we don't necessarily need to focus on listing polyfills and translating them to prollyfills. Rather we ought to focus on an "engine" that helps authors create prollyfills. The "engine" is a Web IDL plus a parser, plus an API, plus a syntax and tooling for distribution/communication.
> 
> I think the group should be building these things or at least focused in that way.
Agreed. So lets make some tasks and get this party started. 



-- 
Marcos Caceres

Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 17:11:09 UTC