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

Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:15:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_AgUNGYjn5Lx1bXkNdcWZHA5BUo1ReLwuL6_p095vKgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Aug 10, 2013 1:03 PM, "Brendan Eich" <brendan@secure.meer.net> wrote:
> Extensible Web Manifesto does *not* mean standardizing only block devices
and reinvinting filesystems (poorly) in JS libraries on top!
>
> Does anyone disagree?

I definitely agree. I was overly accepting when saying that "I'm OK with
[block level APIs]". What I meant to say is that I'm OK with exploring
that. But I don't think the result would make authors happy.

> But first let's agree that move is not compound, composite, or sugar.

I agree move() definitely needs to stay. I think the other ones I listed in
the open questions section should be debated. That was why I started this
thread.

I'm also very interested to hear from Allen why he thinks that this API
couldn't be used across other ES environments. If we can fix it that would
be great. As long as the API remains good for the web.

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 21:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC