Changing [[Prototype]]

David Bruant bruant.d at
Fri Dec 28 02:09:06 PST 2012

Le 28/12/2012 10:29, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
> On 28 December 2012 05:38, Brendan Eich <brendan at 
> <mailto:brendan at>> wrote:
>     No point whinging about it in appendices that either no one reads,
>     or else people read and think less of the spec on that account.
> The fewer read about it the better, no? :)
> Why would people think less about the spec?
> I think it makes sense to separate out legacy features as normative 
> optional, like it was the plan originally.
That's an interesting idea. What about a specific section of the spec 
called "de facto standards"? It would indicate that it's part of the 
standard, but is a scar from history rather than a legit feature.
An intro would explain what this is all about.
It would be an interesting middleground between normal spec features 
(which people take for the Holy Graal) and appendices (which people will 
__{define|lookup}{G|S}etter__ would fit well in this section.

> Then implementations can still choose not to implement them when they 
> can afford it, e.g. when JS is introduced into a new space where no 
> such legacy exists.
A new web browser will need these legacy features, but I agree with 
non-browser implementation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list