- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 15:45:00 -0700
- To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
[tangential nit - whatever you're doing for quoting totally ruins the quoting for others.] On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > It's not clear how that relates to your inability to find the Prxoy material > in the available HTML-based draft Ah, I see. Section 9.2 does indeed work. In the ToC, that looks like the more fiddly irrelevant internal details, while section 26.2 (which is empty/incomplete) looked more directly relevant. I assumed that 26.2 was an error caused by the Word->HTML converter. > Final ECMAScript standards are published in PDF and HTML. That's not of much help to most of us, since we've been having to make implementation arguments and decisions off of the ES *draft* for years now. "Draft" is not significantly different from "final standard" in reality, and so assuming that it's okay to only publish the "final standard" in more accessible forms is incorrect. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 22:45:48 UTC