For my part, I want frameworks to be involved and driving the discussion in a multi-lateral way, but it seems difficult to activate interest. Bi-lateral design seems destined to result in benefits for incumbents.
-
-
TC39 has been having amazing framework meetings for ages now (thanks
@littledan !) The TC39 champion process allows framework devs to work with implementors on designs, and the meetings produce regular reality checks for the designs.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The key is treating framework authors as true blue partners, not just people to get periodic feedback from (because feedback that comes after a lot of design investment is likely to be met with skepticism, and require framework devs to meet a high bar for even minor changes).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The process that led to Display Locking wasn't perfect, but much much better.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It sounds amazing. I have no idea how we go from where we are today to what you just described.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It would be nice if someone with more authority on this topic could lay out a vision that the rest of us could start advocating for...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It is also real life in TC39. It's not perfect but it's better. It would be useful if everyone on the Chrome team abandoned the assumption that framework participation in TC39 slows things down and therefore TC39 is a toxic place to work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Before someone pops up and "lol"s what I'm saying about TC39, I am *not* saying that TC39 is a perfect standards body with no slowdowns caused by committee failure modes. I *am* saying that its normal working mode (in 2019), respects proposals championed by framework devs.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Okay, fair, let's stay vigilant of that, but I don't have those prejudices and I'm willing to help advocate for change. What should we do?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Let's be in touch about this. Maybe we can build something for Web APIs off of the (early, small) base we have in JS outreach groups.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
I'm not as sure that it's a good idea to start more library work in TC39 directly. We can use WICG to move quickly on DOM proposals, tho. Happy to discuss.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @0xcda7a and
I'm not sure how your comment relates to what I said. I'm happy about the ongoing library work in TC39 and want to do more to move ahead with it. At the same time, I was suggesting that we build off of these relationships to help efforts which would be standardized elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @littledan @slightlylate and
WICG gives a good IPR policy and repository name, with outreach up to the people working on the spec, with the help of Discourse and GitHub. These are good mechanisms, but maybe we can help more with additional, complementary ones like some group calls.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 3 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.