- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:03:06 +0200
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>, <angelina@mozilla.com>, <public-nextweb@w3.org>
> > The most important thing is probably to standardize the words > > "prollyfill" > > and "polyfill" so that people can search relevant repos using github ;-) > > I file a bug on the TAG to add that to the AWWW document: > https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch/issues/3 > > We can propose some text. Something along these lines? Web extensibility =============== The World Wide Web is evolving constantly, but some devices may be stuck with older User Agents for some time. With the new ECMAScript capabilities, it's becoming an accepted practice to provide as fallback an author implementation of features implemented natively in newer user agents to older user agents by the mean of scripts. Those scripts are commonly refereed to as 'polyfills'. Sometimes there's a need to add to browsers features before they're ironed out by standards committee. The scripts implementing snapshots of unstable specifications are often referred to as 'prollyfills'. It's important for Web APIs to provide the right amount of extensibility hooks to allow high-quality polyfills and help to move the web platform forward. > > If the idea is to allow peer-review of prollyfills, could we use Github > > issues on a special repo (PolyfillReviews) instead of merges to a JSON > > file? > > That's similar to what we are proposing to do on the TAG. We've not > started on actually documenting reviews, however. We should probably reuse the same approach, then.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 20:03:32 UTC