Adam Klein

This direction seems reasonable to me. One thing I wanted to put on the record, though I don't think it really needs to be in the document (since the CG...

This seems to be because the reported offset for errors is at the end of the decoded instruction. Looking at fixing this, I see two options: 1. Keep track of...

@jgravelle-google has also pointed out that the use-case works the other way, too: being able to be the _target_ of a call-with-receiver is important if we want Wasm to be...

I see that that approach might work, but the general direction here still doesn't seem right to me. What will we do once we end up trying to interop Wasm...

My expectation is that in the long term we're likely to see both Wasm GC which interoperates closely with JS, and Wasm GC that's mostly separate. We already see this...

It seems I was incorrect in my inference based on @RossTate's initial message, apologies for the mistake. My comment was in the context of @aardappel's response, which did start to...

I don't have a strong argument for @domenic, only intuition that case-insensitivity here "makes sense". @jakobkummerow might have opinions here too.

Firefox shipped support in [version 100](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/100#webassembly), and Safari in [version 15.2](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-notes/safari-15_2-release-notes).

It sounds like this was meant as background reading for discussions in several other issues. In future, @RossTate, I'd recommend not opening new issues in such cases, and instead creating...

Unfortunately it looks like the inclusion of this method in this spec, and the WPT tests for it, has caused confusion among implementers. According to [wpt.fyi](https://wpt.fyi/results/wasm/jsapi/tag/type.tentative.any.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=wasm%2Fjsapi%2Ftag), both Firefox and Safari...