Moving String.prototype.substr to normative part of the spec

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Sat Aug 4 14:15:59 PDT 2012


On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote:

> 
> On 3 Aug 2012, at 20:34, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> FWIW, String#substr is mentioned in http://mathias.html5.org/specs/javascript/ (as well as in the ES6 draft). I’ve written some tests too: http://mathias.html5.org/tests/javascript/string/
> 
>> I'm wondering what's the downside of adding it in the normative part of the spec. It's in every browser, it's in Node.js, it's likely to be in MongoDB JS (I haven't tested, but it's based on SpiderMonkey 1.7, and soon V8), likely in all the mostly used JS platforms (which are often based on browser-included JS interpreters).
>> It's likely that platforms that support ES6 without substr will suffer from interoperability from libraries/modules that use it and rely on it and will be forced to add substr anyway.
> 
> This is why it’s been included in Web ECMAScript/JavaScript, FWIW.
> 

BTW, our intent is that with publication of the ES6 standard there will be no need for the non-normative "Web ECMAScript/JavaScript" document as everything that is actually normative for "Web ECMAScript" will be somewhere in the official standard.  However, the current "Web ECMAScript" doc includes some stuff (eg, __defineSetter__) that has never been universally implemented and which will not be added to the ES6 spec.

Allen






More information about the es-discuss mailing list