1- Having read all four blog posts, at times it reads as, hey likes taken over this group to make them deal with our issues and ways of working. You may argue that isn’t a bad thing, but babies and bath water spring to mind. A TAG that only considers current web developer issues may be little better than the current.

2- The TAG can look too academic, sure, but is not because they are looking at the web in 5 or more years time and discussing the issues, rather than the problems people face today. They are looking at building a combustion engine rather than the problems with the horse carriage (which isn’t to liken web development to a horse carriage).

Linked Data, URIs and RDF may look like it has nothing to do with web development, but look at how much the web has changed in the last few years, key technologies now would seem irrelevant to those building web sites 10 years a go.
Many applications are data rich. Imagine building a mapping site/app (hello Apple) but instead of pulling in data from various sources just magically pulled in data for places and locations from relevant sites on the net, and this was just a standard feature with no special API. A semantic and integrated web could offer applications and opportunities that at the moment can not be conceived. I’m not saying this is exactly what is in mind, but I think there is an argument that the TAG needs to look at both the short and long term, even if the latter may seem somewhat academic.

In fact, the only two action points from your original blog post that I haven’t seen action on are

1.) Add build flags to allow WebKit-based products to enable/disable vendor prefix support independently.

and 2.) Chrome/Safari sunset prefixes as soon as is practicable post-standardization.

Any word on what’s going on? I honestly didn’t expect anything to happen, but Webkit and Webkit vendors need to be called out on this stuff, and if the calling out can come from inside it has a lot more weight than when it comes from other browser vendors.

I still think this isn’t really about object-model reformation, and mostly just about other kinds of strangeness. It happens that you can’t syntactically write `myarray.7`, and so Allen’s proposal is enough to implement most of arrays (although length being a data property means you’re still hosed). But the basic point is that Arrays are weird, and we need to be able to *subclass* them easily, and reimplement them possibly (which Proxies work for). So I still don’t think OMR gets you what you want.

Yes, the .length weirdness is probably the worst of it, but it’s related to using indexing operations. Should you, e.g., write into a slot beyond the current .length, you get the .length extended, meaning some sort of trap was handled based on the index operation.

Regarding Dr. Tennison, I’ll let her speak for herself if she’s offended by my categorization. I will say, though, that in the sense I had intended it — someone who works with front-end tech — I don’t think the label would stick. But if a correction is due ill make it.

today’s TAG isn’t composed of web developers (Sir Tim excepted)

Tim isn’t a web developer. He’s not built a serious web site (by modern standards) ever. He’s built a reasonably significant Web App (tabulator) but that was unlikely to generate any of the typical experiences that web developers face (no customers, purely for his own fun, no serious user base, etc.).

Tennison is, in fact, a web developer, albeit an XML centric one with Semantic Web leanings.

I’ve been vehement of by criticism of the TAG and would love to see some serious reform. But I like the details to be accurate!

Also, it’s been great that you’re coordinating with TC39 (and following the above rule :).

Alex, I still don’t understand about subclassing, OMR, and Array. Are you just thinking of the `length` weirdness?