3 ms·
> Contrast that with the agreed-upon work in the WHATWG HTML Living Standard discussed at https://blog.whatwg.org/js-modules https://blog.whatwg.org/js-modules,
by wycats 10y ago
> Contrast that with the agreed-upon work in the WHATWG HTML Living Standard discussed at https://blog.whatwg.org/js-modules https://blog.whatwg.org/js-modules, which is relatively finalized and is being actively implemented now in all browser engines.
Just to clarify, unlike TC39, the WHATWG HTML ("Living Standard") spec requires no consensus at all in order to add new features. Consensus is arrived at once all implementers have implemented the relevant features to the stable versions of their browsers.
To say that what is in the spec has consensus at the same time as browser implementers are beginning implementation (and expressing some concern over details) gets the WHATWG process backwards.
- domenicd 10y agoThat's not correct, Yehuda. For HTML especially, we work on a rough consensus model wherein features are not added to the spec unless they have multi-vendor implementation interest and review. If you'd like to analogize to the TC39 process, features are merged into the HTML Standard once they've reached TC39 "stage 3".
- wycats 10y agoSo are you saying that, for example, the change to CORS from <script> in <script type='module'> has multi-vendor consensus?