At least it is not out of band, but this still strikes me as a slippery slope towards the mess Internet Explorer is dealing with (and Word has in the past). Not very webby, ECMAScript.
5 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 25 previous comments
- I would highly recommend a spec-like doc that can be updated and refined. I guarantee that there will be holes in reasoning that will need to be patched up.Dec 20, 2011
- Anyone have an example or two of a spec that claims to be built on top of a particular (or outdated and inaccurate) version of lower-in-the-stack? Usually the rule with updates to referenced versions is "use at your own risk" because the interaction between the spec making the reference and (potential) update.Dec 20, 2011
- So back when SVG 1.1 first edition was the latest, and XML 1.1 was new, I believe I'd heard SVG WG members claim that the fact that SVG 1.1 referenced XML 1.0 meant that it wasn't possible to use XML 1.1 with SVG, though I don't recall if they actually claimed that implementations must reject such a document. I think the presence of beliefs like this contributed to the lack of uptake XML 1.1.
Another example I had was references from IDN specs to particular version of Unicode (not sure if that's still the case), such that IDN required characters assigned in newer versions of Unicode to behave badly.
I think there's also something to be said about IRI vs. URI, though I think that case is a bit more complicated.Dec 20, 2011
- SVG referencing CSS2 (vs "CSS") was the source of much drama too.Dec 20, 2011
- New proposal: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-December/019112.html
Versioning happens, ES1 < ES2 < ES3 < ES5 but not < ES5 strict -- runtime semantic changes due to strict mode mean you have to test two ways. This was unfortunate, we don't want to do it again. New syntax as the opt-in expression saves us.
RFC 4329 versioning is still useful to hide scripts from old browsers that will choke on them. We do not have a forward compatibility story. Hixie and Maciej suggested one in 2007 (IIRC) but it failed to cope with regular expression (future-proofing of, actually) and I believe ASI. As dherman says we will get there, but not quickly enough for ES6.
Everyone happy now? Happy new year!
/beJan 1, 2012
- Happy new year, I think that using the module syntax as the opt-in sounds great! (Was it just me, or was there no notification for Brendan's comment?)Jan 10, 2012