- From: Andrew Betts <andrew.betts@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:49:39 +0900
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHfTAT2qXx4HBvRWocTOZmVjGC1zyx65i+YwzBzaRCU6c=+xXw@mail.gmail.com>
Alex: > I'm not sure the W3C is really suited to the task of running web-critical, high-performance infrastructure. Agreed. The angle that intrigued me was the idea of the W3C 'blessing' (though co-branding, use of a w3.org subdomain, governance etc) a single co-ordinated polyfill effort, but without taking on the responsibility for the infrastructure. Currently Fastly and Heroku run the infrastructure for polyfill.io and they seem well suited to it. Travis: > What would be the goal of a polyfil repository? Would they count as an implementation of a feature? Could they also be used to help the testing effort? If so, then I would love to see them integrated into web-platform-tests Goals are to enable faster adoption of new platform features. Developers can be hesitant if they think the polyfill will bloat their code, or if they are not sure if it's any good, etc. Web platform tests are interesting - in many cases polyfills are not perfect replicas of the native feature, often due to technical feasibility, sometimes due to lack of resources on the part of the author to cover the entire spec. Building a polyfill is harder than building the feature natively, since your code needs to work in all browsers (and by definition not just the latest ones) whereas the native impl only has to work in one version of one browser. At the same time polyfill authors are normally individuals with limited resources whereas native implementations are created by large teams within well funded corporations. Also, the nature of polyfills means it's possible to retrospectively fix bugs in them much more easily - especially if they are served from a centrally managed CDN. In polyfill.io we've looked at the feasibility of testing polyfills with web platform tests, but in practice almost all polyfills fail those tests, and yet people still use them successfully. Obviously it's great when a polyfill author makes a polyfill that passes WPTs, but since most don't, making that a condition of acceptance into a community polyfill library would be problematic. I guess polyfills might help the testing effort in other ways? A
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2016 04:50:11 UTC