Re: Showing APIs to the ECMAScript world

On Friday, May 10, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Marcos Caceres < (> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Micheil Smith wrote:
> > > Hmm, that's an alright point, however, if developers are copying and pasting
> > > code, then they probably aren't really understanding or caring about what it
> > > does.
> > > 
> > > I think it'd make sense to use a sensible default, and then communicate that.
> > I tend to agree (I made exactly the same comment previously). I have a feeling this one is going to keep coming up.
> I don't think there is a sensible default though. Neither behavior
> seems "more right" for a developer that hasn't thought through what
> they want.
> For the scenario when someone copies code, I think there's at least
> some chance that seeing something-timezone-something in the code will
> trigger that they should think about timezones.
> I'd be fine with changing the API to use a dictionary, as long as we
> make the property required (can't be expressed in WebIDL, but can be
> expressed in prose).

I wouldn't be in support of adding it as mandatory thing on the options. It just means more typing for developers and weird inconsistent behavior when compared to other option objects on the platform. 

Though I'm personally not convinced making it mandatory will help comprehension of what respect/ignore timezone means, I'm ok with leaving it in and seeing how people use this (through some prollyfill or looking at usage of navigator.mozAlarm in the wild). If we find that it's not really helping before LC, then we can change it to be optional.  
Marcos Caceres

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 09:41:51 UTC