On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 AM, David Burns <dbu...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I, like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to making sure we have the same semantics.
LOL, give us a little credit, okay? The authors of the email do not think that. We want to have a properly written specification and conformance tests. I think you're reading "we have no interest in established standardization processes" when what we wrote was "the process is in very early stages". Do you think the Browser Testing Tools WG is the right body to work on a JS debugging and console protocol, used by interactive developer tools? That seems like a surprising choice to me. Also - at least as far as I know - this is not where the current participants in the discussion (Kenneth Auchenberg or Christian Bromann, to name two) have been working. Is having a previously uninvolved standards committee take up an area in which current activity is occurring elsewhere considered friendly and cooperative behavior? It seems unfriendly to me. I would like to avoid upsetting the people I'm hoping to work closely with. I think the people who have actively participating in the work should be the ones to decide which standards body to collaborate with. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
