thoughts the (re)organization of the specification?

程劭非 csf178 at
Fri Nov 2 21:52:55 PDT 2012

Looks good.

Have you considered to split this spec into two part: one is for language
implementer and the other is for language user?

2012/11/3 Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at>

> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list