Re: Coordination (was: ES6 Modules)

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.

-- Dirk