As Davidobot mentioned in the forum thread, we're interested in making the port official if/when it becomes stable without being too divergent in terms of supported features.

To add to that, official platforms / backends come with a significant maintenance burden for everyone involved, especially a web port because it's such a different platform from the others love currently supports. We'll want to make sure we can actually continue to support it rather than having an initial release and then not being able to support it in the future and having to remove our claim of supporting it, once it's stable enough to be considered for merging into love's official platforms.

Hey, Slime
Thank you so much for reading.
I understand that love.js requires a lot more work compared to the other ports.
It doesn't have to be an "official" port, but the project deserves a lot more shine.
Maybe at least make the love.js topic a sticky in the forums?

Maybe mention it under a "Third party ports" section? That would be nice!

We'll want to make sure we can actually continue to support it rather than having an initial release...

This is very important for a good port. Tanner's work is super, but since he was the sole maintainer as soon as he stopped supporting the project, it went out of date real quick. This is doubly true for emscripten/web because both of those things move fast - the openAL problems Tanner was reporting were solved just by virtue of an emscripten update.

I think if the port is publicised more, it should definitely fall under either a 3rd-Party heading, or a In Development.