On Nov 17, 2012 10:34 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > > | I prefer the proposed api go into a prefixed or data- or x- > | form so that it is parallel with the proposal, so if it evolves > | to the point where it becomes native there is no risk of the > | unexpected. > > That's what I was afraid when I spoke about implementing faithfully an ever-changing spec. Prefixing is probably a key solution to avoid problems, but we can also burry prefixing inside the code generator. > Sure, and the advantage is that unlike traditional browser prefixing, you only ever need one. True polyfills are a different story entirely of couse as they are meant to fill mature established function with good parity (in theory - our aim should be to make that read 'in practice'" IMO.
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2012 15:37:19 UTC