W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Non-constructible constructors and Arrays

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:52:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-CyLB=1QnVayZR93-qC7XrxLCVeUHV821bnPMwTs0gTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Somehow we also need to avoid the mistake of browsers releasing
>> unprefixed APIs which don't use constructors as they should. The touch
>> events spec is filled with silly document.createX functions that should
>> use constructors because Apple implemented it that way and without a
>> prefix. :(
>
> Why would adding a constructor be prevented here? Surely so long as the
> experimental API doesn't _conflict_ with the final API, we're fine.
> Prefixes are only intended to prevent name conflicts; so long as spec
> editors vary the names when they vary the semantics, they're not really
> needed in practice.

Prefixes also serve as indicators to web developers showing that an
API is experimental. At this point there is apparently too much
content that relies on the unprefixed Apple API that implementing
anything else isn't really an option.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 20:53:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC