<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>superreview on Oxymoronical</title>
    <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/superreview/</link>
    <description>Recent content in superreview on Oxymoronical</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:27:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/superreview/feed/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What is an API?</title>
      <link>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2012/11/What-is-an-API/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2012/11/What-is-an-API/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I recently posted in the newsgroups about a &lt;a href=&#34;https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.platform/fZV-DYnqQEc/discussion&#34;&gt;concern over super-review&lt;/a&gt;. In some cases patches that seem to meet the policy aren’t getting super-reviewed. Part of the problem here is that the policy is a little ambiguous. It says that any API or pseudo-API requires super-review but depending on how you read that section it could mean any patch that changes the signature of a JS function is classed as an API. We need to be smarter than that. Here is a straw-man proposal for defining what is an API:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
