Just as a note - I think that if we learned anything in this regard it's that standards should guide and not dictate.
It׳s rather impossible to break reasonable user level code and I don't think it's reasonable to expect developers to be fortune tellers :) (I like the idea though) > On Oct 19, 2014, at 02:46, Fabrício Matté <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here is a related Twitter discussion: > https://twitter.com/domenic/status/523202298466418688 > > To highlight the main points: > > > Domenic Denicola claims that extending built-in prototypes is not > > web-compatible. > > Indeed, if we consider all possible corner-cases and ignore best practices > (which is often the case for the Web), adding new prototype properties or > global identifiers can break existing code. > > However, it is basic knowledge that 3rd-party code and future ECMAScript > versions can and will extend the built-in prototypes, and host environments > can inject new global identifiers. If developers do not keep this in mind, > they are writing what I call "code waiting to be broken". > > Developers already have the means to write future-proof code. For instance, I > believe Outlook's code could be made future-proof by simply using > `.hasOwnProperty()` instead of the `in` operator. > > IMO, developers should be more mindful about future-proofness, and new > developers should be educated in this vein. This must happen in order for > ECMAScript to keep evolving without revolving around ugly/unnecessary syntax > such as pragmas and core library imports. "Code waiting to be broken" should > be of no concern to TC39. > > But in reality, many developers simply won't follow the best practices, and > as Domenic said, browser vendors don't want to ship changes that break > existing code. > > Looks like we have reached a stalemate, and I believe this is something that > should be addressed before ES6 is officially publicized. > > O.T.: although I've been accompanying ES Discuss for a good while, this is my > first post here and I'd like to thank all TC39 members and contributors for > the awesome work so far. > > /FM > > >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Here is some more info. >> >> http://windowssystemspecialist.blogspot.com/2014/10/fixing-blank-calendar-with-chrome-38.html >> >> (This blog post would have been useful when we tracked down what caused OWA >> to fail.) >> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Walden <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 10/17/2014 01:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: >>> > [1] Microsoft Outlook Calendar web app (part of Exchange Outlook Web >>> > Access) >>> >>> Microsoft could ship a fix in a point release, right? They surely already >>> provide security patches that admins must install anyway, if they want to >>> keep their users (and their data) safe. If the fix is small, is there any >>> reason why it couldn't be part of such a patch? >>> >>> Jeff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> erik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
