Re: First group project

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 9:53 AM, François REMY wrote:

> I’m totally in. We already worked on that a bit, and I agree with you this is a starting point to everything: even CSS prolyfills require some CSSOM at some point. The WebIDL parser is already a good first part, now we need to translate back to JS.

Excellent.  
>  
> I’ll probably start by making a TypeScript interface description from the parsed WebIDL, because this is easier and does not require working implementation; just definitions and mappings. I really propose we use TypeScript as a target because it compiles down to regular JavaScript and yet provides useful type annotations that will enable us to check we’re not doing ‘wrong’ things + it is a polyfill for ES6 classes, something that’s really cool. Give it a look: http://www.typescriptlang.org/

I'm open to this, so long as we don't use any proprietary features (if any). Lets use Classes _only_ if we absolutely have to. Lets also be weary that in some places typescript may conflict with WebIDL. For example, WebIDL will let you send strings into places where numbers are expected, and do casting for you as part of the conversion algorithm.  

To be clear: any typescript we use will just be a convenience wrapper and should not be relied on to the do type conversion. Type conversions should only be done through explicitly following what WebIDL says.  
>  
> Speaking about scope, I propose we support all browsers featuring full ES5 support; but taking advantage of ES6 features when they are accessible (that means we’ll probably have to provide multiple implementations of some methods, because browsers have different ES6 capabilities (IE10 lacks the ES6 __proto__ for example)).

 I think that is ok. Our target is tomorrow's browsers - we are explicitly not building any polyfills. If someone wants to take a prollyfill and back port it to some legacy browser, that is a separate project.

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 11:26:19 UTC