- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 01:12:56 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Samuel <mikesamuel@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Mike Samuel <mikesamuel@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yeah. It's not an early error. I still don't understand why that's >> so important. > >Because if it's *guaranteed* to be a run-time error (and it is), then >it's better if it can be detected at compile-time instead. Why wait >to throw an error until that particular code-path actually gets >tickled? One reason would be that the "E4H" language might change in the future, e.g. to add features to suppress elements when the template variable for their contents is undefined (don't want <ul> if no list items), like the proposal supports for attributes, and you don't want the whole script to break in downlevel clients when the relevant template is rarely used, or the template to expand differently depending on browser versions. I.e., there usually is no such guarantee without explicit versioning... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 00:13:24 UTC