On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> This is the response I posted to the bugzilla issue: > > I would like to see a better motivation present for why this change is > important. In particular, it is a deviation from the ECMAScript standard. > While syntactic extensions to the Date.parse syntax is allowed by the > specification. It is not particularly a good idea. In particular, every > time a specific implementation adds such a non-standard extension, it > creates a potential cross-browser interoperability hazard. > > Apparently these extensions are not motivated by a desire to improve > interoperability as reference [1] shows that none of Firefox, IE, and > Safari currently provide these extensions. Chrome apparently does (and also > Opera??). > > That format has been recognized by Opera's Date parsers for at least 5-6 years. I don't think you'll find there being a reason for that other than a parser that tries to be permissive about formats allowed, and lets that through (which few others have.) --sigbjorn / [email protected]
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
