On 4/17/11, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mike Ratcliffe wrote: > >> ... >> >> Personally I would welcome some kind of option to disable ASI with open >> arms. Garrett's strict mode warning idea makes sense to me but I am fairly >> certain that not everybody would welcome it. >> ~ > > I'd suggest that this isn't really a standards issue. The standard does not > prevent an implementation from providing whatever sort of supplemental > diagnostic output it deems appropriate. You could even issue warnings > recommending another programming language if you wanted. It also doesn't > block an implementation from providing a user selected mode that excludes > certain standard features such as ASI, it just means that when operating in > that mode the implementation isn't conforming to the standard. > > To be compatible with the standard and the web, an ECMAScript implementation > is still going to have to default to accepting code that depends upon ASI. > However, the implementation can gripe about it all it wants on a diagnostic > channel. > Which major browser implementations discouraging developers from using ASI and how effective is it?
Implementations are motivated to get scripts working and conform to specs. How could Ecma encourage developers to stop using ASI? I initially thought that standard warnings in strict mode would help. -- Garrett _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
