- From: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:34:29 +0800
My apologies, it was brought to my attention that JSON was specified in ECMAScript 5, but the principle still applies (for ECMAScript as well I would say). thank you, Brett On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Brett Zamir wrote: > Hello, > > Although it seems a lot of attention has been given to ensuring > backward-compatibility in HTML5, and while a kind of namespacing has > been considered in use of data- attributes (over expando properties), > it appears to my limited observations that global (window) properties > are being added without sufficient regard for backward compatibility > (and in any case limiting future variable naming by authors). > > While I can understand the convenience of properties like > window.localStorage or window.JSON, it seems to me that new global > properties and methods (at least future ones!) should be added within > some other reserved object container besides "window". > > While I can appreciate that some would argue that the convenience of > globals to authors outweighs potential conflict concerns (and I know > I'm not offering this suggestion very early in the process), it seems > to me that HTML5's client-side ECMAScript should model good practices > in limiting itself as far as new globals perhaps similar to how XML > reserved identifiers beginning with "xml", doing the same with > allowing one "W3C" global or maybe "HTML{N}" globals or the like > ("HTML" alone would no doubt be way too likely to conflict), allowing > authors the assurance that they can name their properties freely > within a given set of constraints without fear of being over-ridden > later. > > thank you, > Brett > >
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 22:34:29 UTC