Re: ES6 lexical temporal dead zone has landed on central
I'm with Jeff on this one. I'm very much against special casing add-on code --
which will invariably develop into another compatibility to break when we
finally do decide to break it.
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Walden jwalden+...@mit.edu
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 5:51:38 PM
Subject: Re: ES6 lexical temporal dead zone has landed on central
On 09/18/2014 04:18 PM, Kent James wrote:
Substituting var for let does not result in code that behaves identically to
previous code, so I can't see why that would be proposed.
The proposal would be to perform the substitution only for let at body level
of a function. (And for global let -- which requires its own semantic changes,
see bug 589199, that are in progress but not complete yet.) So this:
let s = valid;
{ let s = invalid;}
dump(s);
would be converted to this:
var s = valid;
{ let s = invalid;}
dump(s);
with no semantic change.
This substitution is absolutely not a good idea in the long run. In the short
run, for a release or two...maybe. But that's a vry hesitant maybe. I'm
leery of introducing these deviations into the language, such that people write
code expecting the standard semantics and are surprised to find the code
doesn't work as expected in other contexts. How should addons that inject code
into pages behave, for that code? Is this something that an addon author could
easily predict? I could well imagine it working either way. I'd really rather
not go down this path if we can help it.
Jeff
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
Boris, David, Le 20 sept. 2014 à 11:46, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu a écrit : The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything resembling a comprehensive enough test suite * What is a comprehensive enough test suite? * How far the current test suite is from the comprehensive test suite you would have wished. * Does Mozilla has a comprehensive test suite on the same set of features? to ensure anything like interop on some of the core hard pieces (they left out the navigation algorithm, smart, but still have the bogus WindowProxy spec in this supposed PR, for example). s/they/we/ The first rule of a group in which we (Mozilla) participate is to include yourself in the discussion. It helps a lot to change the attitude with regards to the issues. My second biggest issue is that I don't have a concrete proposal for addressing this the first issue. The test suite? My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be meaningfully implementable and/or testable. Having a comprehensive test suite on something that big is close to insane. It is not necessary solvable for this round, but that could teach us on how to improve how to develop the future of features for the Web with more testing upfront and more modular approach. Basically we can learn from our mistakes. Not everything is lost ^_^ Maybe it all doesn't matter too much as long as implementors keep reading the whatwg spec instead. It's here where I have a disconnect with the first comment. Be whatwg spec or w3c spec if we dim that a comprehensive test suite is important then there should be one whatever the stamp on the text. If we think it's not that important, it doesn't matter if it's w3c or not. -- Karl Dubost, Mozilla http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote: My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be meaningfully implementable and/or testable. Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that, yet hasn't invested any meaningful effort into creating modules. It's here where I have a disconnect with the first comment. Be whatwg spec or w3c spec if we dim that a comprehensive test suite is important then there should be one whatever the stamp on the text. If we think it's not that important, it doesn't matter if it's w3c or not. The problem is that the W3C publishes something that is 500 commits behind what they copied from and claims it's interoperable while the test coverage is mediocre. That may be fine for PP purposes and getting your logo in the press, but if you want to get converge across implementations you need a specification that is developed in tandem with implementations. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
Anne, Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl a écrit : Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;) http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318public=1order=org#_MozillaFoundation This apart, I would love to have this discussion during the work week in December. I think F2F removes a lot of the imaginary tensions conveyed by emails. :) You know me, I know you. I don't know that much Boris though apart online. Unfortunately. So discussions in December please. The problem is that the W3C publishes something that is 500 commits behind what they copied from and claims it's interoperable while the test coverage is mediocre. Is the whatwg spec interoperable? Will it ever be? So I guess the answer will be no. Which makes an interesting issue and it's why the discussion currently happening about the future of HTML is cool. Let's see http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html Interoperable Qualitatively interoperable at at a judgment level, not necessarily for every spec assertion. A test suite may be used as guidance for the qualitative decision. Does it meet this criteria? If not on which sections it doesn't. Also there is a link about features at Risk. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures Should they be removed? That doesn't help David Baron in his job as an AC rep though. If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) So Boris said incomplete test suite. That's one comment. My take is that we should support its publication with a record of the parts we think didn't work and what we would love to see for the next generation of HTML and how it should be developed with us participating. -- Karl Dubost, Mozilla http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote: Anne, Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl a écrit : Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;) http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318public=1order=org#_MozillaFoundation I categorically reject this idea that all W3C and/or WG members have equal responsibility for any action the W3C and/or WG takes. - Kyle ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
On 9/20/14, 5:03 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything resembling a comprehensive enough test suite * What is a comprehensive enough test suite? Ideally, one that has a test for every normative requirement in the specification. This means at least one test per sentence of normative text, basically. In practice, this is a very high bar, because that includes testing various interactions between features, which can get pretty hairy. A good start, though, would be direct testing of at least all the obvious conformance requirements explicitly listed in the specification, if not of their non-obvious interactions. * How far the current test suite is from the comprehensive test suite you would have wished. I haven't looked into this in detail, honestly. Given that I know there are parts of the specification that don't match browsers and that no one has brought up, clearly somewhat * Does Mozilla has a comprehensive test suite on the same set of features? Probably not. to ensure anything like interop on some of the core hard pieces (they left out the navigation algorithm, smart, but still have the bogus WindowProxy spec in this supposed PR, for example). s/they/we/ The first rule of a group in which we (Mozilla) participate is to include yourself in the discussion. It helps a lot to change the attitude with regards to the issues. I don't think Mozilla meaningfully participates in this working group. We've tried, but the environment was hostile, and our participation seemed generally unwelcome, so we gave up for all but process purposes. If a group explicitly chooses to exclude me from the discussion, I feel no particular need to consider myself part of that group, so I am sticking by my they. Nor do I feel any particular responsibility for their actions, for what it's worth. My second biggest issue is that I don't have a concrete proposal for addressing this the first issue. The test suite? Yes. I have no concrete proposal for scrounging up the resources to evaluate which aspects of the test suite are lacking, much less for writing tests to remedy that lack. My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be meaningfully implementable and/or testable. We have a slight problem, don't we? It's not like the plan is to lose any of these features, and browsers _are_ expected to implement them in non-buggy ways. It is not necessary solvable for this round, but that could teach us on how to improve how to develop the future of features for the Web with more testing upfront and more modular approach. A more modular approach doesn't necessarily help, since you have to test interactions between the modules (though it sure makes it easier to ignore this need). In the end, whatever amount of interacting stuff you have will require testing en-masse. Now maybe a modular approach will mean that there won't be interactions. Or maybe it'll mean the interactions are less obvious and easier to overlook and get wrong. We'll see. 100% agreed on more testing up front. Basically we can learn from our mistakes. Not everything is lost ^_^ Again, agreed. It's here where I have a disconnect with the first comment. Be whatwg spec or w3c spec if we dim that a comprehensive test suite is important then there should be one whatever the stamp on the text. Yes, agreed. I should have been clearer. The important part to me about implementations is that implementations shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5 REC once said bogosity if fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1 (with the former more likely to happen sooner). -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
On 9/20/14, 5:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: Is the whatwg spec interoperable? No. Will it ever be? That's the goal. Whether we manage to get there, we'll see. So Boris said incomplete test suite. That's one comment. Note that I didn't say we should bring the comment back to the AC, since again I have nothing actionable to say here... -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
Le 21 sept. 2014 à 03:23, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu a écrit : The important part to me about implementations is that implementations shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5 REC once said bogosity if fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1 (with the former more likely to happen sooner). Maybe it's an actionable feedback. To propose a notes for implementers section saying something along: (text can be improved, better suggestions, etc.) This published recommendation has switched to a non maintenance mode. It may contain mistakes or things may have changed since the publication. Please make sure to check the most up to date document BLAH [with link to the whatwg spec] before implementing any features. Would that partly solve your concerns? -- Karl Dubost, Mozilla http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5
On 9/20/14, 6:29 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: This published recommendation has switched to a non maintenance mode. It may contain mistakes or things may have changed since the publication. Please make sure to check the most up to date document BLAH [with link to the whatwg spec] before implementing any features. Would that partly solve your concerns? That would be fairly useful, but I personally am not willing to spend effort, much less political capital, fighting to get something like that added. -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
