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

Re: Prollyfills and the global namespace / multi-fills

From: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:41:08 -0700
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
CC: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, <public-nextweb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CDFC27FE.C8DD%clint.hill@gmail.com>

On 7/4/13 1:39 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>I'm totally with you that the fact a spec can't be prollyfilled is not a
>good excuse not to build a JavaScript prototype: as you said, this is an
>experience you can learn a lot from, I'm totally convinced of that. But,
>you note, it should be clear to people this is not something they can use
>production. In the interoperability bridge team, they use this disclaimer:
>"Note that as with all previous releases of HTML5 labs, this is an
>unsupported component with an indefinite lifetime. This should be used for
>evaluation purposes only and should not be used for production level

This might be my own personal experience talking and not rational
thinking, however I fear this type of treatment on prollyfills will create
an immediate and implicit "toy" characteristic. If you put this disclaimer
on your libraries I believe no one will use them. And that is exactly
where we don't want to go. We'd rather there be healthy usage and a
constant feedback cycle. And competing implementations to help influence
the standardization. I worry disclaimers like this are counter productive
to that. 
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 14:41:39 UTC

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