W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: document.register and ES6

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:28:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLYkG4P8c61Vp=C1bV86vjCrCLxWfSNnY2fZWQF=xW5yxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Seems like you decided that descriptor syntax is *necessary* for IE
compatibility. I'm 80% sure it is not.

S


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I guess it isn't a show stopper for poly-*ish*-fills, I would just wrap
> the native document.register method where it is present > sniff the
> incoming prototype property value to detect whether it was baked > cache
> the unbaked prototype > then pass a baked one to the native method.
>
> Of course this means we'll (I'll) be evangelizing a polyfill with a
> slightly augmented wrapper for taking unbaked objects, but for IE
> compatibility devs will probably offer their first born, so I doubt they'll
> bat an eye at such a benign incongruity.
>
> Daniel J. Buchner
> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember where we started: absurdly clean ES6 class syntax.
>>
>> Requiring class definition class using property descriptors is a radical
>> march in the other direction.
>>
>> I'm hardcore about syntactical tidiness. The reason I'm not freaking out
>> about defineProperties is IMO because I can avoid it when I don't need it
>> (which is about 99% of the time).
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I just made sure it worked, and it does. As for developers freaking out,
>>> I really don't believe they would. If that was the case,
>>> Object.defineProperties should be causing a global pandemic of whopperdeveloper freakouts (
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhF6Kr4ITNQ).
>>>
>>> This would give us easy IE compat for the whole range of property types,
>>> and I'm willing to all but guarantee developers will have a bigger freakout
>>> about not having IE9 support than the prototype property of
>>> document.register taking both a baked and unbaked object.
>>>
>>> Daniel J. Buchner
>>> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
>>> Mozilla Corporation
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you're directly setting the user-added methods on matched elements
>>>>> in browsers that don't support proto, but what about accessors?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe those can be forwarded too, I just didn't bother in my fiddle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Equipped with the unbaked prototype descriptor, in your upgrade phase,
>>>>> you should be able to simply bake the node with:
>>>>> Object.defineProperties(element, unbakedPrototypeDescriptor) - right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but I believe developers would freak out if we required them to
>>>> provide that type of descriptor (I would).
>>>>
>>>>  <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:29:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT