fair enough :D On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/08/2012 14:02, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit : > > looks like the result would be the same obtained via preciseTime() * >> 1000000 ... I just wonder why this is a W3C draft rather than a ECMAScript >> one. >> > Same question stands for setTimeout/setInterval, setImmediate, WebWorkers > or the crypto API to name a few others. Same question for the sync worker > API I heard about only today (no implementation yet as far as I know). > > Habits would be my best guess. > W3C is seen as the source on Earth of web standards, so a lot of people > have the reflex to start a W3C/WHATWG draft rather than considering in > which technology their problem would be best solved. > ECMA TC39 also (mistakenly) bought itself a bad reputation of being slow > to standardize things in smoky rooms. I think it's changing slowly, but > we'll keep seeing for some time drafts of features that should belong to > the language level in W3C drafts. > > I agree a preciseTime function would better belong in ECMAScript, but all > in all, it does not really matter, as webdevs, we just need the features > regardless of where they're spec'ed. > > Eventually there will only be a unique "web platform" > standard-body-neutral meta-spec anyway... I mean... right? eventually? > please? :-) > > Jokes aside, I really hope the concurrency strawman will be on track for > ES.next.next (ES7) and all concurrency-related features in the rest of the > web platform (event loop, timeouts, web workers...) can be specified on top > of that. > > David >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
