W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ISSUE-70: what to do about window timers?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:18:47 -0700
Message-Id: <8E98BD26-8433-4D27-A0C7-8A7F8D82E707@apple.com>
Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>

On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Brad Fults wrote:

> On 4/4/06, Web APIs Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> wrote:
>> A.2) Define using a TimerListener interface which is meant only  
>> for other languages, while ECMAScript only actually allows strings  
>> or functions to be passed.
> I (and others) strongly advise against specifying a timer interface
> that accepts strings of code as executable input.
> It can continue to exist as an implemented behavior, but as it
> essentially uses eval() for its functionality, it should be strongly
> discouraged, and certainly not officially specified.

I don't think the right way to make coding style suggestions is to  
fail to specify things. To be interoperable with a considerable  
amount of existing web content, UAs MUST implement the string  
interface. Note that the ECMAScript spec includes eval(), even though  
many contributors to the specification dislike it.

On the other hand, I would be happy to put a note in the spec that  
the string interface is discouraged for content authors. I agree that  
it is better in all respects to use a function, when writing new JS  
code that uses the Window interface.

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 06:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:20 UTC