Re: Prollyfills and the global namespace / multi-fills

On 7/4/13 1:39 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>I'm totally with you that the fact a spec can't be prollyfilled is not a
>good excuse not to build a JavaScript prototype: as you said, this is an
>experience you can learn a lot from, I'm totally convinced of that. But,
>as
>you note, it should be clear to people this is not something they can use
>in
>production. In the interoperability bridge team, they use this disclaimer:
>"Note that as with all previous releases of HTML5 labs, this is an
>unsupported component with an indefinite lifetime. This should be used for
>evaluation purposes only and should not be used for production level
>applications."

This might be my own personal experience talking and not rational
thinking, however I fear this type of treatment on prollyfills will create
an immediate and implicit "toy" characteristic. If you put this disclaimer
on your libraries I believe no one will use them. And that is exactly
where we don't want to go. We'd rather there be healthy usage and a
constant feedback cycle. And competing implementations to help influence
the standardization. I worry disclaimers like this are counter productive
to that.

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 14:41:39 UTC