Re: Coordination

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 4/13/13 12:49 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> While true, there are different levels of understanding at play here. Do
> they need to understand all the things that have been proposed and rejected
> and why they were rejected?  Do they need to understand various minutiae of
> language features that don't even exist yet and might not?
>
> You can make the argument that they should; that there is no way to really
> understand a language unless you know all the things it is not and why it's
> not those things.  But I'm not sure that's a useful thing to require, in
> the end.
>
>      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?
>>
>
> There are examples of real-world code that some TC-39 members claim to be
> "JS-friendly" while other TC-39 members claim otherwise...
>
> It's obviously worth looking at the APIs exposed by JS libraries, but even
> then there is significant disagreement between libraries and their user
> bases about what makes for a "JS-friendly" API.
>
>  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]".
>>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Another important difference worth keeping in mind: users who do not like
> the API a library exposes use a different library with an API more to their
> liking.  That's not an option we have with the DOM except to the extent
> that people don't use it and use a library instead.
>
>  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".
>>
>
> I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what Chaals and I said, at
> the very least.  If that's honestly what you read in what we said, then I
> urge you to read at least http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
> Public/public-script-coord/**2013AprJun/0068.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013AprJun/0068.html>again.


Yes, you're right. I'm sorry for over generalizing and I hope that you and
Chaals will accept my apology.

Rick


>
>
> -Boris
>
>
>