Follow-up thought: people still link to the (completely outdated) proposals on the wiki, because they are often very readable. Is it conceivable to better maintain proposals for ES2016+ ? Or would that be too much work for the champions?


> On 02 Feb 2015, at 19:50 , Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Jan 2015, at 10:29 , Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org <mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> ECMA-357 (E4X) pioneered informative-first prose sections, not found in ECMA-262 Ed. 3, and as a direct consequence, had too many imprecise or even inaccurate informative notes, which (turns out) were misread as normative, or simply otherwise caused confusion.
> 
> 
> OTOH, I find rationales and complete terminology very important for talking about and understanding the spec (but I do know that that would incur even more work). At the moment, reading the spec feels like figuring out undocumented source code; rationales have to be deduced by going though the TC39 meeting notes and the es-discuss archives (or, in the case of proxies, Tom’s papers). A companion book to ECMA-262 may be the ideal solution, but the problem is that the audience/market for such a book is small. And Allen’s plate must be full enough as it is.

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
rauschma.de



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150202/7c2c94d3/attachment-0001.html>

Follow-up thought: people still link to the (completely outdated) proposals on the wiki, because they are often very readable. Is it conceivable to better maintain proposals for ES2016+ ? Or would that be too much work for the champions?