W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Custom elements ES6/ES5 syntax compromise, was: document.register and ES6

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:32:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLY+O1o9hd2bkQE6XV3hPCmaJuXwVvk=s1TZBRLTb7YB8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Is saying "just do this and it will always work" not good enough?

That part I'm not getting.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:

> No, I believe this is *precisely *the thing to worry about - these nits
> and catch-case gotchas are the sort of things developers see in an emerging
> API/polyfill and say "awe, that looks like an fractured, uncertain hassle,
> I'll just wait until it is native in all browsers" <-- we must avoid this
> at all cost, the web needs this *now*.
> Daniel J. Buchner
> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
> Mozilla Corporation
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>> > Well, yes, here ya go: (o). But I must be missing something. You
>> wouldn't
>> > propose two APIs if they were equivalent, and I don't see how these are
>> not
>> > (in any meaningful way).
>> The only difference is that one spits out a generated constructor, and
>> the other just returns a constructor unmodified (well, not in a
>> detectable way). My thinking was that if we have both be one and the
>> same API, we would have:
>> 1) problems writing specification in an interoperable way ("if you can
>> override [[Construct]] function, then do this...")
>> 2) problems with authors seeing different effects of the API on each
>> browser ("in Webcko, I get the same object as I passed in, maybe I
>> don't need the return value, oh wait, why does it fail in Gekit?")
>> Am I worrying about this too much?
>> :DG<
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 23:33:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:58 UTC