W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-nextweb@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Prollyfills and the global namespace / multi-fills

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 22:20:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jeG71mEazJ3pxN=0P+SSnRm49K5BgA=7p43B6RLjbming@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, public-nextweb@w3.org, Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
On Jul 3, 2013 8:58 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
> Generally speaking: I'm no longer going to call the things I work on
prollyfills - going to call the things I work on something else: they are
"prototype reference implementations" of real specifications explicitly
meant to inform the standardization process (verify spec prose and WebIDL,
produce/verify test suites, and allow interested people to take an API for
a test drive) - and not necessarily to be used for anything else.
I think those are very high fidelity prollyfills.  I think we both agree
that with some simple steps you can prevent the worst footguns of that,
namely: point out explicitly that this is an experimental feature and
provide a basic mitigation strategy for folks who plan on using.. That's
great because the same thing could serve as prollyfill, legit testing/etc,
and a slightly different attachment will make it a polyfill.  win/win.

> I thought those were prollyfills, but turns out I was wrong - but that's
a good thing. I personally see tremendous value in "proto-ref-imps" (oh
yeah! that's totally gonna catch on:)) - and encourage others in also
building them align with these prollyfill things (whatever those are).
I'm not really sure i see how they are different.
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 02:21:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:54 UTC