- From: Christophe Jolif <cjolif@ilog.fr>
- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:18:01 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > 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. Also to note, Compact (Mobile) ECMAScript profile (ECMA-372) doesn't require eval() and thus would probably prevent timeout String method from beeing implemented. I think it would be one more argument to not require it in Window spec. -- Christophe
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 15:17:04 UTC