Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt<[email protected]> wrote:
First, I find this email very frustrating. Dave and I have been
working on the current modules proposal since early 2010, and TC39 has
been working on modules for ES6 longer than that. Modules were even in
ES4 (RIP). We have done all this work in public, and there has been
plenty of opportunity to comment. To the degree that there has not
been much input (which I just don't think is true) this is ultimately
the responsibility of people to provide input. This is a very late
moment to be bringing up fundamental concerns.
All I'm saying is that you cannot expect everyone at the W3C/WHATWG
side to be paying attention to this.
You didn't say that, rather something about "bolting on... scary...
small group... without input...." That wasn't particularly helpful,
especially as the "small group" of designers is a virtue, and the
"without input" is false. But moving right along:
I know you want to, but I have
not seen it happening.
First, this cuts both ways. Do you really want to get into the times
even in the modern era, even in the last three years, when a W3C/WHATWG
(the two are diverging again) piece of spec-work was done without
consulting with es-discuss or any such group, resulting in a less than
ideal JS API? I am not going to throw that stone, it's not my point. I'm
asking you to refrain as well.
Second, there is a list, [email protected], cc'ed here, where
this thread started, and which has existed all along, precisely to
improve let's say "DOM"/"JS" coordination and API quality. We've used it
from the es-discuss side. If it should have been used for something to
do with modules, there's still time. Getting on with specifics beats
back-biting about water under the bridge. Loaders can do a lot; thanks
for your specific feedback on that API.
And third:
It seems to me there's not much of a problem
with modules (apart from maybe some fetching specifics which I emailed
separately about),
Well never mind then! :-|
What are we talking about, concretely? Implying that there was lack of
input, or that Sam expected that "everyone" working on another big hunk
of standards to pay attention, isn't helpful. People from the W3C/WHATWG
side of the house have been participating. Two of your
just-elected-to-W3C-TAG peers, Yehuda and Alex, are on TC39.
but a little bit more coordination on
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-script-coord&index-type=t&keywords=module&search=Search&resultsperpage=50
would be good I think. Especially when it will effect long term how
certain things are to be done. All I want here is more shared
understanding.
I believe you, but your "scary..." etc. words conveyed the opposite,
frankly.
So things seem "ok", kind of -- judging from what you wrote here. Onward!
/be
Despite your frustration, I'm thankful for the replies.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
_______________________________________________
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
