Re: Offline transcript

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Clint Hill wrote:

> Marcos: I think actually what you wrote and what I wrote are in alignment as it relates to standards …
>  
> > > Further: My dislike of prefixing is to this point. I would prefer to write against a "standard" goal. Which would imply that I write my implementation against a "standard" API. While this means in prollyfill it wouldn't be a recognized standard by any standards body immediately it does mean that my implementation code is choosing it as "standard".
> >  
> > This is perverting the definition of a "standard". A standard has to be agreed upon by a set of entities (or it may be a de facto standard - if it is not ratified by any authority and has a large enough market share).  
>  
> I'm simply saying that as a dev I'd prefer to write against a "standard" - that being recognized by a body or being de facto. And I strongly believe that nExt Web will provide that confidence to devs. Which is to say that if it's the nExt Web prefix I can be comforted knowing it's a trusted prefix (and only 1).  
>  
> I've spent the last few days considering all this. I've always maintained that I understand/agree to prefixes, but have suspected/believed there could be an effort to avoid them. I'm on the side of prefixes now, but I will consistently push to make the fact of a prefix not create forward/backward compatibility (because I dislike this notion of implementation code that suits no purpose semantically or syntactically).
I strongly agree. If we can address that as a group, we should. Having said that, prefixing seems like a "safe" starting point.  
>  
> And I totally agree with Marcos: Code is king here and I think there should be more efforts on that.  
>  

I'd like to research some techniques. We should look at Modernizr and friends for this.   


--  
Marcos Caceres

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 16:21:55 UTC