> Like other JS language changes, I'm guessing we expect developers to use
UA sniffing to know where it's safe to ship this syntax?
Yes -- given that this is about new syntax it's difficult to perform
runtime feature detection: you would have to use a dynamic imports with
data URLs, but that's
LGTM3
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:57 AM Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
> LGTM2
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:16 PM Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
>> LGTM1
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:08 PM Nicolò Ribaudo
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > Like other JS language changes, I'm guessing we expect developers to
>>> use UA sniff
LGTM2
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:16 PM Yoav Weiss wrote:
> LGTM1
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:08 PM Nicolò Ribaudo
> wrote:
>
>> > Like other JS language changes, I'm guessing we expect developers to
>> use UA sniffing to know where it's safe to ship this syntax?
>>
>> Yes -- given that this is
LGTM1
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:08 PM Nicolò Ribaudo
wrote:
> > Like other JS language changes, I'm guessing we expect developers to use
> UA sniffing to know where it's safe to ship this syntax?
>
> Yes -- given that this is about new syntax it's difficult to perform
> runtime feature detection
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 7:14 PM Nicolò Ribaudo wrote:
> We would like to ship this together with
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/8BbZ_NUVZ5Q/m/HBv8RHNXAAAJ
> (reflecting the updates to the proposal on the HTML/Fetch side), so that
> the new syntax already has the final sem
We would like to ship this together with
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/8BbZ_NUVZ5Q/m/HBv8RHNXAAAJ
(reflecting the updates to the proposal on the HTML/Fetch side), so that
the new syntax already has the final semantics.
Also, we are in parallel trying to remove the old
