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

Re: Custom elements ES6/ES5 syntax compromise, was: document.register and ES6

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:16:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3yUQZdzZAystkKjDLJwQKL7F-CPzACDjq91faiuBkoBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Cc: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> Well, yes, here ya go: (o). But I must be missing something. You wouldn't
> propose two APIs if they were equivalent, and I don't see how these are not
> (in any meaningful way).

The only difference is that one spits out a generated constructor, and
the other just returns a constructor unmodified (well, not in a
detectable way). My thinking was that if we have both be one and the
same API, we would have:

1) problems writing specification in an interoperable way ("if you can
override [[Construct]] function, then do this...")

2) problems with authors seeing different effects of the API on each
browser ("in Webcko, I get the same object as I passed in, maybe I
don't need the return value, oh wait, why does it fail in Gekit?")

Am I worrying about this too much?

:DG<
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 23:17:13 GMT

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