Re: Alex Russell on Polyfills and some other thoughts...

On Nov 17, 2012 11:45 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 15:34, François REMY 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.
>
> Having said that, we've seen that prefixing sometimes makes no difference
with regards to defacto standards (e.g., CSS prefixes being adopted across
browsers, and browsers having to support those prefixes indefinitely to
remain compatible with content that is no longer being maintained on the
Web).

Right, those are problems with browser vendor prefixing.  This suffers from
none of those problems, because it is decoupled from browser
implementations.

Also, I think the IETF has also stopped recommending people use x-* in HTTP
headers for the same reason. I guess we need to consider the options very
carefully here.

Those arguments have been had and won, x- is the extensibility mechanism
for html/css (easy enough to do the same in js prollyfills too) - its been
had on the lists.  IETF HTTP headers are entirely unrelated.

> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
>
>