On Jul 3, 2013 8:58 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > Generally speaking: I'm no longer going to call the things I work on prollyfills - going to call the things I work on something else: they are "prototype reference implementations" of real specifications explicitly meant to inform the standardization process (verify spec prose and WebIDL, produce/verify test suites, and allow interested people to take an API for a test drive) - and not necessarily to be used for anything else. > I think those are very high fidelity prollyfills. I think we both agree that with some simple steps you can prevent the worst footguns of that, namely: point out explicitly that this is an experimental feature and provide a basic mitigation strategy for folks who plan on using.. That's great because the same thing could serve as prollyfill, legit testing/etc, and a slightly different attachment will make it a polyfill. win/win. > I thought those were prollyfills, but turns out I was wrong - but that's a good thing. I personally see tremendous value in "proto-ref-imps" (oh yeah! that's totally gonna catch on:)) - and encourage others in also building them align with these prollyfill things (whatever those are). > I'm not really sure i see how they are different.
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 02:21:12 UTC