- From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:49:06 -0400
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHfnhfr0ZO5ajkAkQmgE9=Nx_8mBePKEaV-ZQi4Fk+q-rMbWMw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. > This statement negates itself—people defining new APIs have an obligation to understand the language in which the APIs they are writing will be used. > 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 > Agreed. > > 2) We need better examples of what JS-friendly APIs are (or should be) > I can't believe I'm reading this, as if you believe there are no examples of real world code that is very JS-friendly? As far as "outreach", in my own experience whenever I've offered feedback directly to DOM API authors, I'm frequently met with responses such as "that's not consistent with the platform [/end]". > 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 :). > > Meanwhile, library authors have no trouble designing sane DOM APIs that web developers enjoy using. The difference: library authors listen to their users, DOM API authors do not. > 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. > So far today, every response from a non-TC39 member has been to the tune of "I want something, but I don't want to work for it, so find another way to give it to me, but I don't have any suggestions". There is no free lunch. If you want to know what's going on, here's the subscription page: https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss Rick > > -- Dirk > >
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 04:49:54 UTC