Le 07/08/2013 15:44, Peter van der Zee a écrit :
To be honest, I was championing that parser writers should write
flexible and supportive parsers and put strict ocd parsing under a
flag/option. Especially in this case, where you need a parser that
should be able to parse content parsable by a number of other parsers
(-> browsers), you want your parser to be as accepting as possible or
it's useless in those contexts.
I'm not saying "bring back `f()=x`" :) I don't see any point in that
myself.
Aligning with reality is the point. A web standard is pointless if it
doesn't describe reality. That's one of the reason the WHATWG was
founded and one of the reason versioning is an anti-pattern on the web.
Standards follow reality, not the other way around the vast majority of
the time (unlike the common belief). Standards not following reality
make themselves de facto obselete. That's why W3C HTML snapshots are a
cute but useless idea (bugs in spec snapshot versions never get fixed by
definition of a snapshot).
Among other things, that's also the reason why getting implementation of
native promises right the first time is important. If implementations
diverge, the spec will have to be fixed and likely to something that
isn't satisfactory.
Anyway, if you're not saying "bring back `f()=x`" and if it is confirmed
to be a de facto standard, then I am saying it :-) (and will add it to
ECMAScript Regrets, because it's doesn't seem like something people
should write)
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
