Should WebAssembly docs be in JavaScript section?

[Josh-Cena]

I find it very weird that WebAssembly is in the JS docs, because:

• It seems it's not really maintained by the JS team (I, for one, do not understand WASM at all)
• It's not part of the ECMA specs—the WASM interface spec is maintained by W3C
• We do have a dedicated WASM section (and WebAssembly already appears in the sidebar of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly), and it's awkward when all issues/PRs that really target the WASM interface end up having the "Content:JS" label

Can we move this object to the WASM docs completely? This means removing "/JavaScript/" from the URL and removing it from the JS sidebar.

[Josh-Cena]

Pinging @mdn/content-webassembly and @mdn/yari-content-javascript

[teoli2003]

cc/ @Rumyra

[ghost]

I'm not a member or collaborator, but I agree with the idea here.

• It's not part of the ECMA specs—the WASM interface spec is maintained by W3C

This in particular makes it really weird to see WebAssembly considered to be a part of the "standard" ECMAScript global object, when it's not supposed to be.
Rather, it's global just like the Web APIs.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects#webassembly

[Josh-Cena]

I intend to move all these pages under WebAssembly/JavaScript_interface. Pinging once again to get some blessing in doing this:

@Rumyra @MendyBerger @mdn/yari-content-javascript

[Josh-Cena]

OK, seems I've (silently) got the blessing I need. Went ahead to create mdn/content#20603

[hamishwillee]

@Josh-Cena Sorry, did not see this.

IMO WASM is the right place. These are "really" Web APIs, but unlike the others they are intended primarily for toolchain developers not ordinary developers. I think that having them in WASM groups them where they are likely to be discovered by the users who need them.

JavaScript section is definitely not the right place. That's for pure language features.
I suspect these are in the JavaScript section because WASM is a generic runtime and these are the JavaScript APIs to interact with it.

[Josh-Cena]

I also thought about web APIs, but ended up putting it in WASM for the reason you said (discoverability). I'm fine with either.