David Bruant wrote:
Le 28/12/2012 10:29, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 28 December 2012 05:38, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
No point whinging about it in appendices that either no one
reads, or else people read and think less of the spec on that
account.
The fewer read about it the better, no? :)
Why would people think less about the spec?
I think it makes sense to separate out legacy features as normative
optional, like it was the plan originally.
That's an interesting idea.
That idea, a retasking of Annex B, was rejected for reasons repeated below.
What about a specific section of the spec called "de facto standards"?
It would indicate that it's part of the standard, but is a scar from
history rather than a legit feature.
An intro would explain what this is all about.
It would be an interesting middleground between normal spec features
(which people take for the Holy Graal) and appendices (which people
will skip).
__{define|lookup}{G|S}etter__ would fit well in this section.
Those never made it into IE. Why include them? There's a bright line
drawn by interop.
Then implementations can still choose not to implement them when they
can afford it, e.g. when JS is introduced into a new space where no
such legacy exists.
A new web browser will need these legacy features, but I agree with
non-browser implementation.
And as we discussed in accepting __proto__ as normative not-optional:
* Code gets ported, it is unlikely a new embedding will avoid __proto__
if it becomes popular (Node.js is an example of how __proto__ spread).
* SES and other such systems are better off with normative mandatory,
not normative optional.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
