W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:01:29 +0200
Message-ID: <52114439.5030805@gmail.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
CC: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Le 18/08/2013 23:25, Brian Kardell a écrit :
>
> At least part of the debate here is whether or not something which is 
> definitely "I propose ” (prollyfill) and not ”i am providing a 
> conforming implementation to a done deal standard because it doesn't 
> exist in 1 or more browsers” (polyfill) should be mucking about in 
> global space.  Truth is, it is awfully hard to fully avoid because of 
> interrelationships with existing stuff.  Several don't even try- I 
> think that is more dangerous than necessary - it is plausible to adopt 
> patterns to avoid the worst footguns...
>
You words better than mine, but that's the idea I am trying to push indeed.

> this has been discussed on our list at length.  Part of the problem I 
> think is also disagreement on who/how these features should be 
> used.... Are they merely for experimental things, or for use in 
> production.   I think history shows that the former is impractical - 
> see anything vendor prefixed as an example. The later is more valuable 
> for understanding how useful an api is and, given that we know it will 
> happen, I certainly don't want people blaming my code for thousands of 
> websites when code that has worked for a long time suddenly stops and 
> breaks their site when browsers push out an update which has a 
> different and confirming implementation with the same name.
>
Indeed. That's the yield developers would get if browsers/specs 
committed to leave a given namespace to authors.

David
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2013 22:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC