Re: Web IDL Garden Hose

On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> On 9/27/09 3:30 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> I believe we could get rid of custom deleters from the Web  
>>> platform if
>>> Firefox and IE remove support for custom deleters in LocalStorage,
>>> refuse to add it back, and refuse to implement it for  
>>> DOMStringMap. If
>>> that happened, I'm sure other browsers and the spec would follow  
>>> suit.
>>> I don't think I can convince my colleagues to remove the behavior  
>>> from
>>> WebKit if Gecko and Trident continue to support it.
>> I'll see what the relevant Mozilla WebAPI hackers think, if they're  
>> not
>> reading this thread. At this point I suspect it is "too late", in the
>> sense that we'd be taking risks with plaform compatibility we don't
>> accept in our release version/compatibility plan.
> Well, that depends on what we mean by "remove".  Probably not  
> removable in Gecko 1.9.1.x security updates.  Probably removable (in  
> my opinion) in Gecko 1.9.3.  Possibly in Gecko 1.9.2 if the decision  
> is made soon.
> What I don't have is data on how much the syntax is used, or how  
> likely Trident is to remove it too.  If we remove it and Trident  
> doesn't and that means Webkit keeps shipping it and the spec doesn't  
> change as a result (which sounds to me like what Maciej is saying  
> will be the outcome in this situation; the spec part is my guess  
> based on the .tags experience) then from our point of view it's just  
> wasted effort and web developers being pissed off at us for not  
> implementing The Spec (without understanding that it's an early  
> draft) and then we'd end up just having to put deleters back in but  
> lose a bunch of goodwill.  That's a strictly losing proposition for  
> us.
> If Webkit commits to removing if we remove and the editor commits to  
> removing from the spec in that circumstance, then I think we could  
> make the removal stick no matter what Trident does...

I could probably go along with that plan, if we are really motivated  
to do this. It would be good to have Microsoft's input as well. I  
would also find data about use of this syntax useful, if anyone has any.

> P.S.  I _am_ ccing es-discuss on this as on my other mails, but of  
> course that list bounces all mail from me, since I'm not a member.   
> If someone cares about letting that list's membership know that  
> they're missing part of the discussion and is able to do so, please  
> go for it.


Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 23:18:51 UTC