On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> 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 concerns. Rick
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 14:40:18 UTC