Re: ES6 Modules

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.
You didn't say that, rather something about "bolting on... scary... 
small group... without input...." That wasn't particularly helpful, 
especially as the "small group" of designers is a virtue, and the 
"without input" is false. But moving right along:

>   I know you want to, but I have
> not seen it happening.

First, this cuts both ways. Do you really want to get into the times 
even in the modern era, even in the last three years, when a W3C/WHATWG 
(the two are diverging again) piece of spec-work was done without 
consulting with es-discuss or any such group, resulting in a less than 
ideal JS API? I am not going to throw that stone, it's not my point. I'm 
asking you to refrain as well.

Second, there is a list, public-script-coord@w3.org, cc'ed here, where 
this thread started, and which has existed all along, precisely to 
improve let's say "DOM"/"JS" coordination and API quality. We've used it 
from the es-discuss side. If it should have been used for something to 
do with modules, there's still time. Getting on with specifics beats 
back-biting about water under the bridge. Loaders can do a lot; thanks 
for your specific feedback on that API.

And third:

>   It seems to me there's not much of a problem
> with modules (apart from maybe some fetching specifics which I emailed
> separately about),

Well never mind then! :-|

What are we talking about, concretely? Implying that there was lack of 
input, or that Sam expected that "everyone" working on another big hunk 
of standards to pay attention, isn't helpful. People from the W3C/WHATWG 
side of the house have been participating. Two of your 
just-elected-to-W3C-TAG peers, Yehuda and Alex, are on TC39.

>   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.

I believe you, but your "scary..." etc. words conveyed the opposite, 
frankly.

So things seem "ok", kind of -- judging from what you wrote here. Onward!

/be

>
> Despite your frustration, I'm thankful for the replies.
>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 14:52:02 UTC