brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Jun 25 11:42:17 PDT 2009
On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 13:46, Mark Miller<erights at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I think Allen first suggested (please correct if I misattribute or
>> misconstrue), I have been using "Harmony" to label the trajectory
>> that the
>> Harmony agreement set us on. I have been using "ES6" to name
>> whatever the
>> next concrete spec edition will be that emerges from our agreed
>> No matter how fast or slow ES6 is, many of the things currently
>> hoped for
>> under the Harmony banner will not make it into the next concrete
> I want to second that. The list of features we agreed on at the last
> F2F was a bit too long for my liking. I think it is more reasonable to
> do the new spec (with a RI) and just add a few of those features in a
> faster iteration. I have my opinion on which those features are but l
> would rather save that discussion for the next face to face meeting.
You're right, the Harmony agenda is big enough that in all likelihood
it won't fit into one edition.
I was arguing against coupling to editions for several reasons, but I
backed off on calling this outcome because of the tension between
integrated design and triage to fit a standards process.
To argue against the extreme point at risk here, we want more than
barely treading water by switching to a new spec formalism.
Standardization overhead is high enough that amortizing the real work
over too many editions makes for too little progress relative to
Plus, smaller path-dependent hops can paint us into corners that we
can't get out of due to progressive compatibility constraints.
I hate to say more without data, so let's proceed and see how it goes.
On the spec formalism / reference implementation front, the good news
is that we will have help from Dave Herman and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/samth/
More information about the es-discuss