On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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.
Note that there is an official HTML version http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/ > > 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*.) See my response to David's message. In many ways HTML is more like a langue design effort than a library design effort. But regardless, I'm confident that wherever JS is standardized, the basic process of how you evolve a language of this importance will be much the same, and so will be the time frames. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
