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

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 15:45:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDwvNg21XubKsJE4jESV+xr5=cHtcUt3snfq6QtdF0zVg@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC