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

Re: document.register and ES6

From: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:41:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHZ6zJF4sGFihaWYhXfCqT6OEpdEHM9G3+WjUESbDy-5fDLvvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Short of running Object.getOwnPropertyNames on the existing node > then
iterating over each to grab the property descriptor with
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor to rebuild an unbaked object > and finally
setting the properties with Object.setProperties, I am unaware of how to do
so - is there an easier way? If so I would love to not do the above or go
the unbaked object allowance wrapper route :)

Daniel J. Buchner
Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
Mozilla Corporation


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> 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 22:42:46 GMT

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