W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: ES6 Modules

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:05:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78j8RxtghDoW2=PX3jF8wkwLtP55ObCuES9Z4sR2vXkTEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth@ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>, David Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> First, I find this email very frustrating. Dave and I have been
> working on the current modules proposal since early 2010, and TC39 has
> been working on modules for ES6 longer than that. Modules were even in
> ES4 (RIP). We have done all this work in public, and there has been
> plenty of opportunity to comment. To the degree that there has not
> been much input (which I just don't think is true) this is ultimately
> the responsibility of people to provide input. This is a very late
> moment to be bringing up fundamental concerns.

All I'm saying is that you cannot expect everyone at the W3C/WHATWG
side to be paying attention to this. I know you want to, but I have
not seen it happening. It seems to me there's not much of a problem
with modules (apart from maybe some fetching specifics which I emailed
separately about), but a little bit more coordination on
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-script-coord&index-type=t&keywords=module&search=Search&resultsperpage=50
would be good I think. Especially when it will effect long term how
certain things are to be done. All I want here is more shared
understanding.

Despite your frustration, I'm thankful for the replies.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 14:05:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:48 UTC