On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > Given the number of people working on platform APIs that "should" > seems ever less likely to become a reality. We need a different > strategy. > > I also think you need a different strategy. If people interested in defining new APIs for the web have to be tracking how the JS language itself is evolving, this is a total failure of both one or both sides. A slightly more ridiculous example to prove my point would be to suggest that web spec authors should also be tracking the minutes of WG21 (the ISO C++ committee), since all of these APIs are actually being implemented in C++ : However, I grant that there are three valid points between where we are and where we want to be: 1) A great many existing DOM APIs are very un-JS-friendly 2) We need better examples of what JS-friendly APIs are (or should be) 3) TC39 et al. need to give us a language where we can build sane DOM APIs without feeling like we need to change the language to do so :). To that end, we probably do need more *short-term* interaction, but I don't think asking everyone working on a DOM spec to follow es-discuss is the best way to do so. There's actually very little overlap between what is talked about most of the time on es-discuss and the sort of stuff a DOM spec author cares about. -- DirkReceived on Saturday, 13 April 2013 02:18:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:12 UTC