- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 15:31:39 +0100
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth@ccs.neu.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > We are arguing about enough other issues that -- since this seems to be > controversial as well -- to avoid an avoidable argument, I will include all > three lists as you do here. However, for the record, I think this is silly. > There's nothing about this issue that is browser specific. The fact that it > is currently "implemented above the language-level", meaning I assume the > language implementation, is irrelevant. Many linguistic abstractions are > implemented first as libraries. This is a victory when it happens, as it > means the underlying abstraction mechanisms were sufficient. Over time, some > elements of some of these libraries become blessed as part of the language. > This is as it should be. > > What about any of this is specific to the browser is beyond me. The reason the way it's implement is relevant is because it involves a different set of people, who are not all subscribed to es-discuss, yet are affected by the outcome of this discussion. On top of that, the specification they're implementing is primarily discussed on @w3.org lists. And I'd like to update that specification as soon as possible with this newer design (and names) as it seems to have broader consensus than the current one. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 14:32:09 UTC