4 ms·
It's been this way for a little bit already (actually since 3 years ago! [1]). It was an intentional thing though, because we want to put this extension under
by syrusakbary 4y ago
It's been this way for a little bit already (actually since 3 years ago! [1]).
It was an intentional thing though, because we want to put this extension under a common group, not something that only Wasmer owns... that's why we haven't changed it yet. But I agree that probably using WebAssembly Foundation is perhaps not the best name :)
[1]: https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa722505a45eb0f783acf06b956d1b9 https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa72...
- benatkin 4y agoWebAssembly Foundation is a misleading name. WebAssembly has a foundation, just not a separate one. It's W3C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly I like that OpenJS Foundation is called OpenJS Foundation and not JS Foundation. That said, the main thing I object to is the trademark.
- syrusakbary 4y agoYou actually gave me a great idea! Perhaps we can rename it to OpenWasm Foundation (I think that's a great name, your suggestion inspired me). I will discuss with more people to see what name will make more sense to rename it to. And please let me know if you have other suggestions!
- benatkin 4y agoGood luck. I wouldn't mind having multiple organizations. The Bytecode Alliance is great but I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them or the CNCF.
- syrusakbary 4y ago> I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them I 300% agree with you on this