On Monday, 9 March 2015 at 19:23:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Well, the problem with polyfill is that it defeats the whole point. Pretty much anything can *already* be done via cross-browser JS libs. But some things have no justification for requiring ANY of the bloat or bother of JS - hence "a href", ":hover", seamless iframes, html imports, and many other examples. So polyfill accomplishes nothing - it's little more than a new name for what we've ALWAYS had: over-reliance on JS libs for basic, basic functionality.
Sure, if you want safe inclusion then there is no alternative to iframes, html imports are not safe, I think?
But I think polyfills are different from using JS in general, since it is a temporary replacement that allows legacy browsers to access your site while your design is using current an upcoming tech. So it is more like embedding a temporary emulation layer than actively using JS.
