Wiki updates to reflect last two tc39 meeting
Tom Van Cutsem
tomvc.be at gmail.com
Fri Apr 29 08:30:27 PDT 2011
2011/4/28 David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com>
> IMO, writing these issues up as strawmen was a nice way to spark discussion
> but I don't see any need for them to clutter the harmony: namespace with
> extra proposals.
> Why don't we just take the decisions and fold them into the existing proxy
> proposals. Does that seem reasonable?
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
> We did reach consensus on these items among those present, but since Mark
> wasn't present at the last meeting, we didn't consider the decisions made as
> final yet. I will discuss these items with Mark next week. If no new issues
> arise, I don't see a problem with these items promoting to proposal status
> after next meeting. We probably also need to iterate on these strawmen in
> light of the issues raised in the other thread on the "receiver" argument.
> 2011/4/28 David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr>
>> A couple of things have been discussed and decided related to proxies
>> during the last TC39 meeting. Notes have been added on the following pages:
>> Should they be moved to proposals?
>> Le 28/04/2011 12:08, Brendan Eich a écrit :
>> Thanks to Waldemar again for his notes. These plus my memory were the
>>> basis of all my recent edits. I moved strawmen to proposals and left
>>> forwarding pages (in case of external links). In the course of this, I
>>> improved and tested some of the self-hosted specs, e.g. Number.isInteger.
>>> Anyone motivated and capable, please check my work:
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss