Same here. Carpe diem.

-- Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Nov 2, 2012 7:24 PM, "Kevin Smith" <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121102/6b51119f/attachment.html>

Same here. Carpe diem.