> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich > Sent: 26. februar 2008 09:49 > To: Waldemar Horwat; Maciej Stachowiak > Cc: Graydon Hoare; es4-discuss@mozilla.org es4-discuss > Subject: Re: ES4 implementation process, teams, and meetings > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > > > Brendan Eich wrote: > >> Thanks for understanding. Now with that in mind, please re-read > >> Jeff's post and mine. We are talking about working > intensively in the > >> next three months on both specs and implementation. Now is > the time > >> to step up. Apple was /hors de combat/ for a long time in > Ecma TC39. > >> Kicking the > >> legs out from under the table and pointing at the floor is > not good > >> citizenship in my book, whatever our (real) failings in keeping > >> proto-specs up to date. > > > > This is getting a little too belligerent. > > > Rather than update wiki'ed proposals, we've been planning on > writing more integrated specs. Lars has a library spec that > should be reviewable. Jeff is working on an ES3 spec based on > the RI, I believe. If we pursue this course, then we need to > do something with the out of date parts of the wiki to avoid > confusion. Things should get better over the next month, but > not soon enough.
Just to follow up quickly. Jeff and I will have reviewable material (at a minimum a language base document and the ES4 library spec) ready at least two weeks before the next TC39 f2f. We haven't talked about how to distribute these materials, but an announcement will be made here and on the TC39 reflector in due course. (The next TC39 f2f is March 27 and 28, so two weeks before that is March 13.) This morning I will also be posting a few small -- frankly trivial -- draft specs for some ES4 surface features, and any feedback you have on their substance or format is welcome. (If there's agreement on the substance then they may make it into the March TC39 submission, but that depends on what we have time for, too. In either case they end up in the spec: namespace on the wiki once we've converged.) Each of these proposals directly addresses a point in John Resig's spreadsheet: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pFIHldY_CkszsFxMkQOReAQ&gid=2 For a number of surface and mid-level features, specs like these are probably just right in that they define the feature without needing to make use of heavyweight formalism or discuss every detail that the full spec will have to pin down. (For example, the ES3 spec for Array.prototype.reverse pins down the order of insertions and deletions in the array. That order may be observable by the program (at least in ES4 it is) so it's important for interoperability that it be specified. But it's a level of detail that's probably not very useful in these draft specs.) The point I'm making is simply that if any implementer among you feels that a feature listed in the spreadsheet above is interesting to you and well enough specified in the supporting documents (and in the RI if you're so inclined) then go forth and write the spec, and let it be informed by doing a trial implementation. And then post the spec here. --lars _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
