Re: Discussing new API proposals

On 7/17/13 2:59 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     We welcome new proposals and ideas to be made and discussed, and think
>     this WG is the right place to do so.
>
>     However, as outlined already last year, we think the WG should focus on
>     finalizing the current API draft (to a LC status) before starting a new
>     public/official document describing a new API. We think it has advanced
>     far already, there are working implementations and it is used by
>     application developers. Abandoning it, or slowing it down, now would
>     be a
>     bad idea.
>
>     Discussing different use cases that are hard to do with the present API,
>     and discussing approaches and ideas that would make those use cases
>     easier
>     to achieve, would probably be an excellent exercise in distilling
>     out the
>     main approach for a new API (or future API extensions). We welcome such
>     discussions.
>
>     In discussing, we should distinguish carefully between three
>     categories of
>     proposals:
>
>     - those that would remove functionality that present applications depend
>     on, and make it hard or impossible for those applications to go on
>     working
>     - those that move functionality between Javascript and the browser,
>     possibly requiring simple adaptation libraries to maintain the
>     functionality applications are currently using
>     - those that extend the current functionality, allowing current
>     applications to go on working.
>
>     While respecting the need to keep APIs as clean and uncluttered as
>     possible, it should be obvious which kinds  of changes require the more
>     rigorous justification.
>
>     The list is open for the discussions.
>
>
> Stefan, I think it's great that the chairs are explicitly allowing
> discussion.  However, I admit I'm a bit confused about what is
> encouraged and what is discouraged here.  So, can you confirm a few
> things just so I don't misunderstand?
>
> - Discussion for use cases for "2.0":  encouraged
> - A new public/official document: discouraged until "1.0" is at least LC
> - Discussion/proposals for what the "2.0" would look like: ????
>
> For example, is my NoPlan JS API proposal (which is 3 method additions,
> no removals, or of the third type of change you mentioned) encouraged or
> discouraged until 1.0 is at least LC?   If you're requesting that I wait
> to discuss it further publicly, I can wait.  I just want to be clear
> that's what you want.
>
> Thanks  again for making things clear and supporting the web developers
> and their input.

Hi Peter, I think we can all use our common sense. We want to get to a 
stable 1.0 ASAP. If there are proposals that would improve 1.0 a lot but 
would not delay it a lot, then they should be brought to the list I 
think. And there is no penalty for bringing proposals!

>
>
>     Stefan for the chairs
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 12:35:42 UTC