FYI Both Mozilla and WebKit have vendor prefixes in DOM extensions.
window.webkitNotifications window.mozPaintCount Chrome added some as well but we use a single object. chrome.csi(); chrome.loadTimes() On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:23, Allen Wirfs-Brock < allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I just noticed from John Resig’s Twitter stream that Proxies are now in > the FF nightlies. I think this sort of implementation experience is > exactly what we need to be doing for features that are proposed for > Harmony. However, this announcement starting me thinking about what happens > when inevitably there are differences between this early experimental > implementation and the final ES-Harmony specification. How can we > encourage such implementation and usage without also risking premature de > facto standardization of details that ultimately may need to change? Can > we help JavaScript programmers recognize such experimental features? > > > > This might be done with a technique similar to CSS’s vender-specific naming > conventions (eg, _moz_Proxy) or via namespacing. In either case, we won’t > necessary need to use vendor names. For example, “TC39exp”, is probably a > pretty collision safe global name so you might have for example > TC39exp.Proxy. > > > > I don’t have any personal experience with CSS vender extensions, but my > expression is that they may be somewhat a mixed bag from an interoperability > perspective. Is this the case? I don’t want to send us down a path that is > a folly but it does seem like it would be wise to clearly tag experiments as > such. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Allen > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- erik
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
