Coordination

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 03:35:45 PDT 2013


Le 12/04/2013 14:10, Alex Russell a écrit :
> From the DOM side, I don't know that there's enough F2F contact to say 
> that "DOM authors need to be aware of X" from the TC39 side will ever 
> fly without some big checkbox in their lifecycle that says "has been 
> reviewed for idomatic API practice [yes|no]".
This assumes that APIs come to life at the W3C and that when the first 
draft appears on the W3C side, there is still time to gather feedback 
and modify the API. This is true for some APIs, false for others. Every 
major vendor has recent examples of unilateral initiatives that were 
first implemented in a web browser then brought to the W3C. I see 
setImmediate for Microsoft, a bunch of FirefoxOS "WebAPIs" for Mozilla, 
Audio/File APIs on the Chrome side, etc.

Rick Waldron wrote:
> As far as "outreach", in my own experience whenever I've offered 
> feedback directly to DOM API authors, I'm frequently met with 
> responses such as "that's not consistent with the platform [/end]".
I've also sent my share of API feedback and been met with sometimes no 
responses at all which I personally interpreted as "it's shipped or 
close enough to; it's too late to make an API change now". Of course, 
that's my interpretation :-)


If we want a useful "API idiomacy review" process, this process has to 
start at a time it's still possible to change the API. One solution is 
for all vendors to submit an API to the W3C (or at least 
public-script-coord) *before* shipping it. I'm doubtful this will ever 
happen, but I'd be happy to read if major browsers representative said 
here that they're committed to never ship before the API has been 
reviewed for idiomacy.
Another solution requires the review to happen "internally" within the 
organization implementing an API, that is a group [1] would discuss with 
the different vendors at times they're drafting an API.

My main point here is that APIs being idiomatic will require more than 
just coordination between TC39 and the W3C. It will require an effort 
from implementors to share the APIs they're drafting before they ship 
it/bring it to standardisation.
Also note that if a review process happens in the context of a 
unilateral initiative, what to do of the outcome of the review is up to 
the unilateral actor.

David

[1] I don't like the idea of this review process to be restricted to 
TC39 as being part of it is pay-to-play. Web devs have relevant feedback 
to share regarding JS APIs (duh!) and not necessarily the money to . Due 
to their fantastic API work, I wish the Node.js folks would also 
participate to this discussion. Unfortunate some vocal folks in the 
Node.js community have shown so much aversion towards standard bodies :-/


More information about the es-discuss mailing list