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

RE: Promises: Auto-assimilating thenables returned by .then() callbacks: yay/nay?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 11:51:05 +0200
To: "'Mark S. Miller'" <erights@google.com>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Domenic Denicola'" <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011901ce47e3$bce36310$36aa2930$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Friday, May 03, 2013 1:40 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Domenic Denicola
> <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> > From: Jonas Sicking [jonas@sicking.cc]
> >
> >> (... lots of really good stuff ...)
> >
> > I agree with everything you wrote, both in the technical content
> > and in the tone. I appreciate the tone as a counterpoint to the
> > two extreme voices we've heard from so far, and in particular it's
> > great you've given some perspective on the WebApps WG process
> > which I don't think many people in this discussion have. It's also
> > really good that you phrased things as "noodling over the Future
> > API" instead of "we produced a spec, you didn't, so STFU".
> Jonas, along with Domenic, I would like to thank you as well for
> shifting tone, and for your clarification of history. I appreciate
> the reasons for not withdrawing one draft standard until an adequate
> replacement appears -- provided that the draft is treated as
> tentative in the spirit stated in your email.

The way it is currently pushed, it doesn't seem to be a "tentative draft".
For example, a lot of people requested that we change the JSON-LD API to use
Futures instead of callbacks. It would be great to clarify the standing of
this document.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 09:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC