2025-10-03 [01:23:44.0725] Hello hello! 👋 Lovely to see so many familiar faces here! I'm sure the TC39 process has changed quite a bit since the last time I've interacted with it – so I hope this is a reasonable place to start again :) [01:25:25.0676] Specifically I'm here because of the ShadowRealm proposal – I'm wondering, I saw that there was discussion about moving it to Stage 3 but I guess that didn't happen and I can't find any details on that. So I'm both curious whether * that is an accurate representation of the latest state of the proposal, and * there is anything that a motivated person can do to help move it along at this point? [03:28:21.0307] Hi Anna 👋 If helpful, it was last presented in Feb: https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/57892385c66ffd51df3148c8347e77b8b49338a5/meetings/2025-02/february-18.md?plain=1#L580 There was a "for stage 3" presentation December last year: https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/57892385c66ffd51df3148c8347e77b8b49338a5/meetings/2024-12/december-02.md?plain=1#L801 [03:29:25.0252] The conversations are primarily focused on the Web integration story - specifically which APIs are exposed within the ShadowRealm AFAIK [05:51:45.0557] Ashley Claymore: Thank you, that's great context :) Also, that's absolutely a reasonable problem to find the "right" answer to first. I'd still be curious to know if there's a concrete things that one can do as an individual to help here, but there's nothing obvious that springs to my mind I guess [09:01:15.0022] Reaching out to ptomato (intermittent availability) might be best. He's also been collecting a list of use cases, and always keen to add to that list 2025-10-06 [08:51:10.0491] this might also give some context: https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/57892385c66ffd51df3148c8347e77b8b49338a5/meetings/2025-02/february-19.md#use-cases-for-shadowrealm 2025-10-07 [06:43:12.0689] ptomato (intermittent availability): so ... there's a lot of conversation about potential end-user use cases for the web – I think there's also some clear use cases for this along the same lines outside of it (and that's the angle from which I'm coming as well). Is that something that would be helpful to talk about at all? Because, at the end of the day, I would imagine that the primary uses for this if it gets accepted _are_ outside of the browser and more relevant for edge computing or backend applications [10:26:34.0486] I think it would be helpful to include, just to show the sheer variety of end-user use cases [10:26:39.0303] but my guess is that it won't help directly, as the browser DOM teams will not necessarily be convinced by outside-of-browser use cases [10:27:19.0692] the answer will likely be something like "if Node wants it then they can just provide a platform API for it" 2025-10-08 [05:21:40.0019] I guess the underlying message here then is that there is no place for JS language features unless they also have reasonable browser use cases? Runtimes like Node.js providing a platform API isn't exactly a terrible idea, to be clear, but this is one that _does_ require at least the commitment of the respective JS engine to provide the necessary means to support it. And I don't think that that's a given without spec'd language support.