[Bug 20913] [Custom]: Meaning of prototype in document.register is underspecified

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20913

--- Comment #21 from Scott Miles <sjmiles@chromium.org> ---
> "Instead, there's the same syntax for both ES6 and ES5/3" - I don't see how
> this is at all possible to polyfill, because HTMLScriptElement.call(this);
> throws.

This problem exists for polyfilling regardless of how you frame the syntax, and
we have already discussed ways around it, no?

> Developers rarely, if ever, use native element constructors in the wild
> because only a handful are supported: Image, Option, etc. Now let's be
> clear, developers use non-DOM/element related user-code constructors for
> their own objects, but given there are only a few working element
> constructors as it is, I assure you they won't miss what they never had.

I think it's a mistake for any one of us to claim the inside scoop on
developers. Personally I agree with Dimitri et al, that moving towards proper
constructors is a positive. As I suggest above, I don't think it causes the
problem you think it does.

> I think you'd be surprised to what extent developers prefer option objects
> in widgets and object instantiations, it is actually the most common pattern
> in all major libraries today.

If we can define precisely the information we are talking about, we can
probably reach agreement about the best place to specify/store these things. I
don't believe there is a philosophical rightness here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 02:10:43 UTC