On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:28 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm also going to ask a pretty violent question, but: does it still need to > be spec'ed by ECMA? The only argument I've heard in favor of staying at ECMA > is that some people still find ISO standardization and Word/PDF important. > Can this be re-assessed? Especially given the recent promise/future mess? > Other parts of the platform (thinking of DOM, DOM Events, XHR, forgetting > about HTML5 specifically) have survived to the living standard model with > success. The rumor on the street is that their latest editor draft of a lot > of W3C is in HTML format; that would encourage a tighter feedback loop. > Node.js is becoming more and more popular and I don't believe ECMAScript 5.1 > being an ISO standard is that important for the people interested in Node.js > (probably even the business-focused ones). > > To a large extent the flexibility I'm asking for is already in place between > TC39 and implementors (features are prototyped before being fully spec'ed). > It just needs to be extended to another important consumer of the spec that > is WebIDL.
Speaking as someone who's been doing W3C work for years, I find ISO standardization a non-issue, and Word/PDF an anti-feature. I can't *stand* the ES draft as it's published today, and rely on the unofficial HTML version for everything. I strongly support any efforts to move JS standardization into the umbrella of the W3C. I also strongly support any efforts to move JS standardization to a module-based affair, where parts can level independently. I think we've accumulated more than enough evidence over the last decade that monolithic specs are not the right way to develop standards for the web. (The one counter-argument, HTML, is an important exception to learn from, as it is a monolithic *document* but a modular and independently-advancing *spec*.) ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
