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

Re: Non-constructible constructors and Arrays

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:50:32 +0200
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v1l4aiub64w2qv@g239.guest-int.opera.com>
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:17:12 +0200, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>  
wrote:
> Isn't the problem not so much the lack of vendor prefixes, but the wrong  
> API design?
>
> IOW would a bunch of webkitCreate functions really make the current  
> situation better?
>
> In Ecma TC39 we do not vendor-prefix but we do try to get agreement on  
> design principles and particular straw proposal details, including  
> names, and then optimize for success.

How can we do that if the API is being developed in secret?


> My point is not so much to criticize vendor prefixing of JS APIs (I'll  
> save that for another message) as to observe that if we don't agree on  
> constructor pattern beating document.createX then vendor prefixing won't  
> help.

It at least more clearly indicates to authors it is proprietary.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 21:51:24 UTC

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