- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:35:46 +0100
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 26/02/2013 23:06 , Brian Kardell wrote: > 1. Does anyone else feel like we _should_ have a standard I think that this thread has shown that there are interoperability issues. Given that this is a debugging tool, you really want it to have predictable behaviour so as not to waste time looking for a problem that in fact comes from the console API. > 2. Given that this goes beyond the browser, where should that standard > live? I feel like its proper home is ECMA since the API, again, has not > really anything to do with browser necessarily. I think that it makes more sense in ECMA, but if for whatever reason that doesn't work out you're welcome to bring it to W3C. > 3. If ECMA, is it part of the language (ES7?) or is it separate like > i18n? I was actually suggesting that my opinion is the later, this > feels like an ECMA module that could use standardization and is commonly > imported in browsers and many engines for back-compat as 'console' > (though I suggesting 'logging' is a better API term). I also suggested > (in the strawman) that it could start _very_ small with the abstract > APIs that are at least universally non-breaking (even if they might do > something slightly different) and have been fermented for years and > years - thus it should mostly be an easy approval to find a home and > basis on which to gather proposals and consensus I don't have a specific opinion on how ECMA organises work, but I strongly agree with the idea of starting very small and iterating, even if it means that you release several version in a relatively short period of time. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:35:55 UTC