On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Hello, TC39 peeps! I am happy to have you and your expertise here.
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>
>> This can all be expresses, but less clearly and concisely using ES3/5
>> syntax. But since we are talking about a new HTML feature, I'd recommend
>> being the first major HTMLfeature to embrace ES6 class syntax. The class
>> extension in ES6 are quite stable and quite easy to implement. I'm pretty
>> sure they will begin appearing in browsers sometime in the next 6 months. If
>> webcomponents takes a dependency upon them, it would probably further speed
>> up their implementation.
>
> We simply can't do this :-\ I see the advantages, but the drawbacks of
> tangled timelines and just plain not being able to polyfill custom
> elements are overwhelming. Right now, there are at least two thriving
> polyfills for custom elements
> (https://github.com/toolkitchen/CustomElements and
> https://github.com/mozilla/web-components), and they contribute
> greatly by both informing the spec development and evangelizing the
> concepts with web developers.
>
> To state simply: We must have support both ES3/5 and ES6 for custom elements.
>
> :DG<
>
ES6 classes can be pollyfilled:
class Sub extends Super {
constructor() {/*constructor body */ }
method1 () {}
static method2 {}
}
is:
function Sub() {/*constructor body */ }
Sub.__proto__ = Super;
Sub.prototype = Object.create(Super.prototype);
Sub.prototype.method1 = function method1() {};
Sub.method2 = function method2 () {};
Allen
