- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:54:04 +0000
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Hill, Clint <Clint.Hill@goaaa.com>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Monday, 25 February 2013 at 14:47, Robin Berjon wrote: > To reinforce what Marcos was saying: this isn't about not doing it. > We're simply asking the question of whether it's worth spending time on. > > Building a standard is expensive. A lot of the time, that cost is small > compared to the savings it brings to developers (and users, but that's > less obvious here) and so we just do it. But here, a few of us are > wondering if there really is that much pain on the developer side. > > I've never noticed much in the way of problems with the console API, but > I'll readily admit that I'm quite unsophisticated in my usage of it, and > while I use it every day it's pretty much just for console.log(). > > If there's a clear case of developer pain (as opposed to making a > standard because it's neater) then I'm certainly happy to see it happen. > > If that happens, I don't know if TC39 wants it or not, but in case it's > rather not then I can think of at least two groups in W3C that we could > likely bring this work to speedily (i.e. without having to worry about > chartering and such issues). I'll add that if this is about authoritative access to developer documentation, then this should be done on webplatform.org. That's now the authoritative place to document the Web platform for developers, AFAIK. _However_, if evidence of interoperability issues can be presented, and those are causing developer pain, then that makes for a stronger case for standardisation. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 14:54:43 UTC