We've seen the requests to provide more context regarding our decision to consider WASI and related efforts harmful, and created a summarizing document with more background. We hope that our perspective on matters can help to turn WebAssembly to the better.assemblyscript.org/standards-obje…

@AssemblyScript This sounds bad. Web assembly was supposed to be for the web. Where does this committee think they're taking the standard with this approach?

@AssemblyScript For me this explanations is just resentment from AssemblyScript team towards people how developing WASI without adding support for JS. I think it is right decision not to include with browser API into WASI, because WASI is just API for interoperable language which WebAssembly is

@AssemblyScript My question is, what can we, the common developers, do to help prevent this bias from taking root and damaging the web standard?

@AssemblyScript Couldn’t you have made some of the same arguments about Node.js. And look how well that did. And now they are integrating with web standards such as WHATWG streams down the track. File system doesn’t exist on the web. It’s coming. So can’t we just do same thing.

@AssemblyScript I feel you're raising these issues with the wrong standards commitees. If anything, this is something that depends on browser makers. There's no reason WASI cannot function in the browser, utilizing common web technologies under the hood.