W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Futures

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:53:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CANr5HFV1MR69Jjy_cB2YEt5LsWPB4+bsJ5h=EzMtE_K_JOtmbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Mark: It's also unfortunate and incorrect to say "the w3c forked this".
This plan was fleshed out on public-script-coord and you've been part of
the evolution of the proposal ever since. I don't understand what, if
anything, you're objecting to.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> On 17/04/2013 17:56 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> Hi Anne, promises were already in progress for ES7. It was the w3c that
>> chose to fork the effort rather than participate and provide feedback.
> Just to be crystal clear here, the W3C hasn't done anything at this point.
> DOMFutures currently only exist in a WHATWG spec. Given W3C's close and
> cosy relationship with WHATWG though, I certainly expect groups to start
> using it pretty much immediately so I understand if you might see that as a
> distinction without a difference.
> Having said that, the only reason we're collectively having what might
> amount to a form of turf war is because we're all tilling the same turf,
> and despite having goals that are overwhelmingly the same we're doing so
> from somewhat distant houses.
> I don't think that Anne's comment stemmed from some form of imperialistic
> view of W3C taking over everything (that's not quite like him :), but
> rather simply intended to point out that it would be simpler if we did all
> of this under a common roof. Indeed, we can make plans for coordination as
> we just did, but coordination happens because there's a disconnect.
> Removing the disconnect can be helpful too.
> I have no idea what the politics of such a rapprochement would look like,
> and I can certainly imagine a variegated spectrum of modalities for it. I
> just want to point out that if there's interest, there are people over here
> happy to help make it happen. At the end of the day we just want a better
> platform with the minimum cost in bureaucracy.
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:54:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:12 UTC