Putting parsers aside I just don't get what people want to achieve with standardized JSX???
-
-
Replying to @ramlmn @slightlylate and
People want to use JSX without a transpile step. Doesn’t seem weird to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That’s all fine and good, but JSX is designed in a way that is well integrated into compilers and not designed in a way that could be as easily integrated into the web platform. It’s obvious historically why it was done this way, and likely would not be this popular if it hadn’t
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Yup, JSX has (currently) a single compile step that translates to functions which run in browser for each load. But standardized it may require a parse and execute phase for each load.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Is there a good write up of this problem? I don’t understand why it would require re-parsing; Twitter doesn’t seem like the right medium for an explainer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's probably buried in a comment on a random GitHub issue. Cause that's how we roll.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
This is I think one of the biggest problems in web standards. There’s all of this stuff that “everybody knows” but there’s nothing you can link to explaining it. It’s in a slide deck. It’s in a github comment that means nothing out of context. It’s in an earlier draft of a spec.
5 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Without disagreeing that we should be constantly seeking to improve the standards process and make it more inclusive, can we appreciate for a moment what an improvement it is that today these things *can* be found on a slide deck or in a GitHub comment?
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
So much of this stuff used to happen entirely behind closed doors, and that only improved because of the enormous effort of people who believed strongly in the need to open the process up to the world.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
The limiting factor IMO is time and energy. People already feel like standards bodies move too slowly. Gaining consensus across so many different groups is emotionally exhausting, and that’s before dealing with the general public. It’s a hard balance to get right.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
I've advocated over the years that @w3c and others should have individual membership classes whose dues pay into a more democratically-allocated budget for travel and representation. Glad JS Foundation is doing more of this now, but not the same.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @tomdale and
The crisis of legitimacy is why I've forced our teams to use incubation (modeled on IETF and Raf's TC39 process, which we now take for granted). Going to places where you can more easily meet users *matters* at the early stages.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @tomdale and
Most SDOs aren't comfortable with discussing funding models and believe they have an evergreen model and constituency. It ain't so.
@w3c, e.g., is currently suffering for not building a broader coalition (after many, many warnings).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.