thoughts the (re)organization of the specification?

Kevin Smith khs4473 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 2 18:24:07 PDT 2012


Just speaking as a spec reader, I say go for it.

- Kevin


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:

> In both ES5 and ES6 (so far) we have generally tried to maintain the
> section structure of the previous editions.  Occasionally we have had to do
> some minor subsection renumbering (or not so minor in the case of ES5
> section 10) but have generally maintained the overall structure of the
> entire document, even when it has appeared to non-optimial or even
> confusing.
>
> I'm now looking at the work to implement the refactoring of the  internal
> methods in section 8 and I see we are probably going to loose even more of
> the section number correspondence with previous editions.  This tempts me
> to seize the moment, abandon the legacy organization, and reorganize in a
> more logical manner.
>
> Here is the new structure that I have in mind, with reference to existing
> ES5 (section numbers:)
>
> Introductory Material
>         Scope (1)
>         Conformance (2)
>         Normative References (3)
>         Overview (4)
>         Notational Conventions(5)
>
> The ECMAScript Computational Engine
>         Data Types and Values (8)
>         Commonly used Abstract Operations (9)
>         ECMAScript Execution (10 and possibly parts of 14)
>         [Possibly new material related to module loaders and realms]
>
> The ECMAScript Programming Language
>         Source Text (6)
>         Conformance, Error Handling, and Extensions (16)
>         Lexical Tokens (7)
>         Expressions  (11)
>         Statements (12)
>         Functions and Classes (13)
>         Scripts and Modules (14)
>
> The ECMAScript Standard Library (15)
>          [potentially some reordering and reorganization]
>
> Annexes
>
>
> What thoughts do people have  about this? Should we go for an improved
> document organization or should be continue to patch around the current
> structure, probably forever.  If we do restructure, I would probably do
> most of the work after we were feature complete and until them, only make
> incremental changes that make sense that the context of new feature work.
> But it would be helpful to decide soon which path we are going to take.
>
> One of the issue is the correspondence between the spec. organization and
> the test262 organization.  We already have massive changes changes and the
> algorithm and algorithm set level that will impact test232, so I'm not sure
> that the higher level reorg that I'm thinking about would have that much
> more impact on it.
>
> Feedback???
>
> Allen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121102/52007f82/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list