Re: Coordination (was: ES6 Modules)

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Alex Russell <>wrote:

> 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.

The "DOM side" should all be subscribed to es-discuss and read it on a
regular basis. Additionally, our f2f meeting notes are a great way for them
to keep up to date, as well as providing a good jump off for questions and


Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 14:40:18 UTC