- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:01:07 +0900
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, Mark Miller <erights@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com>, Dave Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d-XsPd_Dt-ZGdP2JeJy7Xo0tMvK9ifKqF+CoV+c-zZZw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > No. Promises are entirely polyfillable in ES5. >> >> Or, to be more accurate, they're polyfillable in ES5 + setTimeout(). >> The latter can't currently be expressed in pure ES, as we haven't yet >> added the concept of the event loop to the ES spec (it's planned for >> ES7, I believe), > > > We'll need some sort of a hook for the Module system in ES6, but yes, most > of it is slated for ES7. That said, there's a misconception floating around > this group (although not held by you, Tab) that should be put down as soon > as possible: > > TC39's publication schedule no more defines when things get added to > runtimes than the final TR status for one of your work products does. Case > in point, Object.observe(): it's slated for ES7, but thanks to broad > consensus and early implementation work by Rafael Weinstein and Adam Klein, > it has gained the status of "accepted proposal". In CSS WG speak, this is > somewhere past FPWD and somewhere before LC, and that can happen *even > though the spec isn't slated to be finished for years.* > * > * > This is a good and healthy mode of work. > > What's happening with Promises is different still: there is agreement with > the stakeholders in TC39 (cc'd) to work with the DOM maintainers to ensure > compatibility between the spec that eventually lands in ES7 and the DOM > spec that's necessary to allow implementations to move forward before TC39 > moves into fully spec-ing ES7. > > *That means that the entire question of what will TC39 do and what bits > of the event loop are spec'd are entirely moot*; they are a distraction > (and one hopes, not simply being used as an excuse). > I hope your optimism is borne out by future facts, particularly if this group goes down the path as an Early Adopter of this "future future". As a point of note, what TC39 does put into a spec does matter for those of us who often have to abide by final, SDO published specifications, and not merely so-called "living standard" snapshots of a spec-du-jour. > > This mode of collaboration between TC39 and DOM/CSSOM has, in the past, > been rare, but what you're seeing here is actually a *great* thing, and > something we should hope for more of. Web Platform APIs are TC39's largest > spec consumer, and yet our mutual understanding of the process and > terminology differences is pretty low. I hope this can be a first step in > building a bridge there. > > Regards > > >> but that's irrelevant for our purposes, as the event >> loop *does* exist in de facto ES in every browser, and non-browser ES >> environments like Node. >> >
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 08:01:53 UTC