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

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<
>>
>
>