Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory

On Aug 18, 2013 6:01 PM, "David Bruant" <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 18/08/2013 23:25, Brian Kardell a écrit :
>
>>
>> At least part of the debate here is whether or not something which is
definitely "I propose ” (prollyfill) and not ”i am providing a conforming
implementation to a done deal standard because it doesn't exist in 1 or
more browsers” (polyfill) should be mucking about in global space.  Truth
is, it is awfully hard to fully avoid because of interrelationships with
existing stuff.  Several don't even try- I think that is more dangerous
than necessary - it is plausible to adopt patterns to avoid the worst
footguns...
>>
> You words better than mine, but that's the idea I am trying to push
indeed.
>
>
>> this has been discussed on our list at length.  Part of the problem I
think is also disagreement on who/how these features should be used.... Are
they merely for experimental things, or for use in production.   I think
history shows that the former is impractical - see anything vendor prefixed
as an example. The later is more valuable for understanding how useful an
api is and, given that we know it will happen, I certainly don't want
people blaming my code for thousands of websites when code that has worked
for a long time suddenly stops and breaks their site when browsers push out
an update which has a different and confirming implementation with the same
name.
>>
> Indeed. That's the yield developers would get if browsers/specs committed
to leave a given namespace to authors.
>
> David

Well. .we already are getting modules. ECMA is pretty careful about what
they do.  There might be some room to ask for formal advice on more
specific use cases (like prototypes on arrays) - several TC39 members here
so they would know better how to approach that.  I've seen recently a
resurgence in mucking about there...But DOM stuff is the one that really
worries me most to be honest.