- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:18:47 -0700
- To: Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>
- Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Brad Fults wrote: > > On 4/4/06, Web APIs Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> wrote: >> A.2) Define using a TimerListener interface which is meant only >> for other languages, while ECMAScript only actually allows strings >> or functions to be passed. > > I (and others) strongly advise against specifying a timer interface > that accepts strings of code as executable input. > > It can continue to exist as an implemented behavior, but as it > essentially uses eval() for its functionality, it should be strongly > discouraged, and certainly not officially specified. I don't think the right way to make coding style suggestions is to fail to specify things. To be interoperable with a considerable amount of existing web content, UAs MUST implement the string interface. Note that the ECMAScript spec includes eval(), even though many contributors to the specification dislike it. On the other hand, I would be happy to put a note in the spec that the string interface is discouraged for content authors. I agree that it is better in all respects to use a function, when writing new JS code that uses the Window interface. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 06:18:56 UTC