W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:38:29 -0700
Message-ID: <245fb4700909252138x3851c758ue4fe2c2f39762c79@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Another way to put my earlier concern is: It's impossible to write a
conforming JS engine that browsers will want to use by only following
the ES spec - since there's additional, un-speced, behavior that isn't
in ES that is necessary in order to construct a browser's DOM.

Consider the following scenario: I write an ECMAScript engine that is
significantly faster than any existing engine by simply following the
ECMAScript spec. A browser maker then wishes to use this engine. This
would be impossible without adding additional (hidden) features to the
engine to support the DOM. There is nothing in the ECMAScript spec
that requires the ability (at the very least) to add native extensions
with arbitrary behavior to the engine.

Is this a requirement ECMA is comfortable with?

-- Yehuda

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
> [much appreciated information snipped -- thanks!]
>
>> I really don't see how the review process and accountability could be much
>> more open for the development of Web IDL elsewhere, nor is the burden on
>> reviewers that large... it would simply be one more low-traffic mailing
>> list.  Are there other barriers you see?
>
> I alluded to employers who are not currently paying W3C members not wanting
> their employees participating, even individually. I'll let one notable
> example that I know of speak for himself.
>
> The "mailing list as firehose" problem can be solved with enough work, but
> with two standards groups there is always greater risk of conflict, and just
> competition for attention. Two lists is simply one more list than one list
> to keep up with.
>
> This is a price of collaboration at wider scale, so don't let me stand in
> the way, since I've been explicit about being in favor of collaboration.
>
> W3C and Ecma both have transparency issues, but I don't expect those to be
> fixed easily. I mentioned them ("People in dark-glass houses ... [should not
> throw stones]") in reply to Maciej asserting greater openness on one side.
> Again this is not a "barrier" I'm trying to take down right now.
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>



-- 
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 04:39:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT