On 1/22/15, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully >> implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully >> compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!! >> >> Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision? >> >> I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant >> with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ? > > Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere > near "done" (is it yet?) before marketeers at browser vendors started > touting compatibility and various players hyped the orange shield. (And > then Hixie said it was a living spec, version-free. :-P) >
HTML5 isn't going to be done. I wrote, "extensible design doesn't have a due date", someone else coined "living standard", and that sealed it in. EcmaScript differs from HTML5 obviously in that it defines the syntax, including new syntax features like spread, modes (strict and non-strict), and internal specification methods like [[ToPrimitive]] new internal methods like [[NeedsSuper]]. Syntax features are more complex than new built-ins (or any new host objects of HTML5) because they affect the language itself and all of its dependencies, internal and external. Language modes increase this complexity. Modularity can make "when is it going to be done" less of an issue. I don't see how modules could be used for new syntax features (they possibly could be; I just don't see how). But speaking of the orange shield, what about a sticker for HTML4 with "It works" as a tagline? -- Garrett @xkit ChordCycles.com garretts.github.io _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
