On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> In reality, only the web-exposed parts are, > > What is not web-exposed here, pray tell?
The parser itself. Only the results of the parser are, in terms of observable program behavior and presence/absence of syntax errors. >> and >> then only the parts that the web actually depends on. > > This is the part we can't determine. "The web" is not just the > Google-indexable (by what user agent?) part, but paywalled and intranet > content as well. I've written before that finding true positives helps > reject a proposed incompatible change, but finding no positives does not > prove that we can make the change. > > Furthermore, the first browser to roll the dice and face breakage loses, > making implementors generally unwilling to take even likely-small risks. > This browser Prisoner's Dilemma can be helped by cooperation, e.g., among > TC39ers, but even then only for a big enough payoff. See the typeof null == > "null" attempt early in ES6 development for an example. Preaching to the choir, buddy - I've been standardsing for quite a while too. I'm not stating an opinion either way on whether this change would be possible, I'm just pushing back on Rick's incorrect statements about the primacy of an existing standard. Gotta keep good brain hygiene, you know. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
