https://groups.google.com/group/amd-implement
Follow that list if you have questions about implementing a JS loader
that supports AMD, or if you are interested in those types of
discussions. First discussions on the list will likely be around
relative ID module resolution and establishing a set of compatibility
tests.
I created a separate list since AMD has not been agreed upon on this
list, but there are enough implementers now that we need to coordinate
more, and I wanted to spare this list that noise.
James
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
> To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.
>
Can you elaborate? I am not sure how to parse your comment.
The amd-implement list is for hopefully mundane implementation
questions that I thought would be noisy for this list. I can bring
back any API issues to this group for discussion. So far the API has
been stable.
If you think it best to have the amd-implement threads on this list, I
can point people over here.
James
You've forked CommonJS modules with your AMD effort (and cleverly named "RequireJS"). I'm just suggesting renaming your spec and leaving CommonJS alone. Your new mailing list is a good start.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Tom Robinson <tlrob...@gmail.com> wrote:On May 12, 2011, at 7:10 PM, James Burke wrote:You've forked CommonJS modules with your AMD effort (and cleverly named "RequireJS"). I'm just suggesting renaming your spec and leaving CommonJS alone. Your new mailing list is a good start.
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Tom Robinson <tlrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Great. How about just removing "CommonJS" from the name of your spec and using "AMD" only?
>
> Can you elaborate? I am not sure how to parse your comment.
>
> The amd-implement list is for hopefully mundane implementation
> questions that I thought would be noisy for this list. I can bring
> back any API issues to this group for discussion. So far the API has
> been stable.
>
> If you think it best to have the amd-implement threads on this list, I
> can point people over here.
I may be missing context here, so I apologize if that is the case.The landing page for CommonJS.org states, as I'm sure you know, "The intention is that an application developer will be able to write an application using the CommonJS APIs and then run that application across different JavaScript interpreters and host environments".It goes on to list a set of different environments, leaving out the main environment JS is used in.AMD is a proposal for an alternative module API that supports all environments. Why does it not deserve to be considered and discussed as a standard proposal on the same level as any other?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.
--
Jacob Hansson
Phone: +46 (0) 763503395
Twitter: @jakewins
AMD is a proposal for an alternative module API that supports all environments. Why does it not deserve to be considered and discussed as a standard proposal on the same level as any other?
There is not consensus.
Kris Kowal
The problem isn't with AMD (at least not the older versions), it's the idea that AMD should be an authoring format. If you recall, AMD was originally called the "Transport" spec, and of course was intended purely as a transport format. Over time new people joined the list, made their modifications to make it suitable as an authoring format, and finally renamed it to AMD. I have always strongly expressed my disapproval with this direction, but it seems to have had zero effect. My comment was snarky and trolling, and I didn't seriously expect anything to come of it, but it seems to have had more effect than any of my previous arguments...
There will never be consensus in a debate that's open to new participants.
Can we call that Robinson's Law? Or maybe just CommonJS's Law.
The moment we think we have consensus someone new will arrive and debate the same points all over again. I've seen it happen dozens of times here.
There will never be consensus in a debate that's open to new participants.
When this thread (and the other) started, I did feel as though J Burke was under some sort of attack, after having only recently started making use of RequireJS myself, and enjoying it. Just wanted to say I appreciate the perspective.