Re: Coordination (was: ES6 Modules)

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Robin Berjon <> wrote:

> On 09/04/2013 16:51 , Brendan Eich wrote:
>> 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.
> It most certainly cuts both ways. What I'd be interested in though is if
> there's anything we can do to make it not cut at all.
> You mention reviewing JS APIs; we're working on quite a few of those  and
> we really want all the feedback we can get.
> Is there a simple, lightweight process that would ensure everyone's aware
> of ongoing work?

>From the DOM side, I don't know that there's enough F2F contact to say that
"DOM authors need to be aware of X" from the TC39 side will ever fly
without some big checkbox in their lifecycle that says "has been reviewed
for idomatic API practice [yes|no]".

>From the TC39 side, it wouldn't be hard to have a quick breifing at the
front of every-other meeting to bring people up to date on the specs that
are going through the process, need eyes, etc. No review in the meeting,
but just a heads up that now's the time to weigh in on X, Y, and Z.


> I am loath to head towards something formal, but at our end we can
> certainly agitate for an informal rule like "Whenever you produce a new
> API, or a major redesign, you must ping public-script-coord".
> I don't have a set idea as to how to improve this; suggestions are very
> welcome. My point is: if you want to review APIs, we're more than happy to
> facilitate that.
>  Second, there is a list,, 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.
> We could definitely use increased awareness of what you're working on. I
> think a lot of people on this side are still under the impression that TC39
> disappeared down a hole to work on ES4 and never came out. I'm not saying
> that it's justified, just that it's the sort of perception that we ought to
> dispel.
> Judging from the first reactions we're getting with Futures (mostly
> involving people staring like rabbits about to splat) we already need to do
> some outreach on this side, but it would certainly be helpful to get the
> occasional heads up for features that will definitely have a strong impact
> on API design and the platform in general. Modules are *definitely* a
> candidate for that treatment.
> --
> Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 12:11:52 UTC