andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 15:55:56 PST 2015
agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully implemented
ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully compliant with a year in
the past feels so wrong !!!
Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision?
I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with
HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ?
Thanks for any sort of clarification
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jaydson Gomes <jayalemao at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a lot of projects, articles and materials out there using the
> "ES6" nomenclature.
> I don't think changing the name right now, close to the final release, and
> when people are already familiarized with the name is good approach.
> What is the point?
> Using the year in the version name remind me Windows.
> On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola <d at domenic.me> wrote:
>> From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:axel at rauschma.de]
>> > OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as
>> I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion.
>> > Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming
>> languages, a slower pace is good.
>> Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :).
>> * not actually sorry.
>> > * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but
>> none that are based on modules)
>> This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are
>> fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are
>> established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules
>> aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part
>> of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement.
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss