On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 13:46, Mark Miller<[email protected]> wrote:
As I think Allen first suggested (please correct if I misattribute or
misconstrue), I have been using "Harmony" to label the trajectory
that the
Harmony agreement set us on. I have been using "ES6" to name
whatever the
next concrete spec edition will be that emerges from our agreed
trajectory.
No matter how fast or slow ES6 is, many of the things currently
hoped for
under the Harmony banner will not make it into the next concrete
edition.
I want to second that. The list of features we agreed on at the last
F2F was a bit too long for my liking. I think it is more reasonable to
do the new spec (with a RI) and just add a few of those features in a
faster iteration. I have my opinion on which those features are but l
would rather save that discussion for the next face to face meeting.
You're right, the Harmony agenda is big enough that in all likelihood
it won't fit into one edition.
I was arguing against coupling to editions for several reasons, but I
backed off on calling this outcome because of the tension between
integrated design and triage to fit a standards process.
To argue against the extreme point at risk here, we want more than
barely treading water by switching to a new spec formalism.
Standardization overhead is high enough that amortizing the real work
over too many editions makes for too little progress relative to
chunkier editions.
Plus, smaller path-dependent hops can paint us into corners that we
can't get out of due to progressive compatibility constraints.
I hate to say more without data, so let's proceed and see how it goes.
On the spec formalism / reference implementation front, the good news
is that we will have help from Dave Herman and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/samth/
).
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
