On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote: > We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out > different features.
That's not how the committee has worked since 2008, and even before then (pre-Harmony), with a split committee, we still had two groups working on consensus by drafting proposals and prototyping them. The way we try to work is to propose before implementing, including prototype features. Individual vendors don't deviate from proposals unilaterally and silently. If old proposals were implemented, and then the proposals changed, we may have some work to do adjusting implementations (certainly true of SpiderMonkey, and we will do it). But we do not go off on our own, as individual vendors, and try out features never proposed on the wiki. Also, your point in an earlier message about user testing was good. We can't "do science" to decide what features in the enormous feature-vector hyperspace to standardize. We won't search well, and user-testing gives little certain data. We can hope to find obvious usability problems that were not foreseen. Also interactions with other features (old and new) that were not anticipated. User testing is good but if we're working in Harmony, the harmony:proposals are the ones to prototype-implement, and edit based on implementation and user testing. Ecma works by consensus. It's hard to keep consensus or achieve it later by doing single-vendor experiments that seem to blindside the committee, and possibly even the community. This does not mean design by committee. The designers are one or two champions working on individual proposals. But the proposal work happens in the open, in plain sight. Mark and Tom's Proxy work is an exemplar. /be > > jjb > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
