Ecma does official HTML now.
/be
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
unofficial HTML version for everything.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
[es-discuss only fork]
Hi,
I'm forking this as I feel it surfaces an issue which I analyse as being
rooted in the ECMAScript organization. As I describe my opinion below,
please feel free to tell me I'm wrong in my analysis.
I'm sorry this is not a technical discussion, but I nonetheless
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
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:28 AM, David Bruant wrote:
...
Although promises were planned for ES7, they weren't part of any formal spec.
As far as I know, no recent TC39 meetings even mentioned the concurrency
strawman [2].
i don't think the mention observation is totally correct. More
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
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Note that there is an official HTML version
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/
Thanks!
This apparently has bad google-juice, and is not linked prominently in
the first couple results that I look at
6 matches
Mail list logo
