W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:37:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8BE863.2080309@opera.com>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
CC: Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com>, "lbolstad@opera.com" <lbolstad@opera.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On Sun 15 Apr 2012 02:25:11 AM CEST, Tobie Langel wrote:
> On 4/14/12 11:46 PM, "James Graham"<jgraham@opera.com>  wrote:

>>> We should aim for full support of ES5.1 in coremob level 1. If level 0
>>> is
>>> to be a de facto standard, there aren't enough compliant ES5
>>> implementation in the wild yet to justify making full support an
>>> absolute
>>> requirement.
>>
>> [citation needed]
>>
>> I'm 100% sure that there aren't any "compliant" ES3 implementations; it
>> simply isn't possible to be 100% compliant and work on websites.
>> I believe that all current browsers target ES5.1 and, at least on
>> desktop, most browsers do very well on the testsuite.
>
> So I absolutely agree both specs should give a very clear signal that ES5
> is the target. I don't want to make all of ES5 a requirement in level 0
> however
> as a) devs don't rely on all the features and b) there aren't any fully
> compliant (mobile) implementations yet.

Neither are there any fully compliant mobile implementations of ES3. 
But all browsers are now targeting ES5.1, including in cases where 
there are different requirements for ES5.1 vs ES3. Since there isn't 
strict backwards compatibility between the two languages, it's not 
really possible to say "ES3 + x" and come up with something that any 
implementation should target.

It feels like you don't want to add ES5.1 as a requirement because of 
some existing browser. But the specification is clearly written as a 
specification for UAs. I don't see the value in specifying that future 
UAs must target less than they actually do target based on the fact 
that some legacy UA didn't have a full implementation of some new 
feature.

If you also want to write a document that has requirements on authors 
then it could make more sense to give some requirement to avoid 
features that are known to have buggy or missing implementations in 
extant UAs. But no one seems to be working on that document at the 
moment.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 09:38:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC