- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:46:47 +0200
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, www-dom@w3.org
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:25 , Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 9/19/2011 9:50 PM, Sean Hogan wrote: >> It won't affect people who use JS libs, so they won't care. >> I don't see why the JS libs would find it worth incorporating, and people who write their own will feel the same. > > JS libs have always been quick to do feature testing and implementation of new APIs. > I'm sure that JS libs that could be served, would incorporate it. There are two additional arguments in favour of moving such functionality into the DOM. One is performance. It doesn't apply in all cases but when it does it helps and libraries can feature-test and start using it immediately. Another is dependency babel. It's an annoying yet recurring issue that when you want to use a higher-level JS lib in a page it might bring in jQuery, while another brings in Prototype, while another etc. By making the DOM more usable we gradually reduce this issue. Yes, it will take time. But it'll take just as much time whether we start now or later, so we might as well do it. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 20:47:13 UTC