On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote: > > On 3 Aug 2012, at 20:34, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > FWIW, String#substr is mentioned in > http://mathias.html5.org/specs/javascript/ (as well as in the ES6 draft). > I’ve written some tests too: http://mathias.html5.org/tests/javascript/string/ > >> I'm wondering what's the downside of adding it in the normative part of the >> spec. It's in every browser, it's in Node.js, it's likely to be in MongoDB >> JS (I haven't tested, but it's based on SpiderMonkey 1.7, and soon V8), >> likely in all the mostly used JS platforms (which are often based on >> browser-included JS interpreters). >> It's likely that platforms that support ES6 without substr will suffer from >> interoperability from libraries/modules that use it and rely on it and will >> be forced to add substr anyway. > > This is why it’s been included in Web ECMAScript/JavaScript, FWIW. >
BTW, our intent is that with publication of the ES6 standard there will be no need for the non-normative "Web ECMAScript/JavaScript" document as everything that is actually normative for "Web ECMAScript" will be somewhere in the official standard. However, the current "Web ECMAScript" doc includes some stuff (eg, __defineSetter__) that has never been universally implemented and which will not be added to the ES6 spec. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
