On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:59 AM Michał Wadas <michalwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that's hard to remove features from the web. That's why I propose > *clear > and well defined *route to clean up language. > Instead of asserting in bold, why not answer the questions I posed in reply to your clear but incomplete proposal? Suppose TC39 said "with" was going away in 2027. Who among content owners, developers they hire sporadically, or browser users visiting their sites would do anything, and why would they do it? If a browser in 2027 ships without "with" support ahead of other major browsers, what happens to its support costs and market share? > Browsers already "broke" the web many times. Java Applets are dead. > ActiveX is dead (though some government websites still require it). Flash > will be dead in few years. And some sites stopped working because of this. > You are citing proprietary plugins. The Web of which JS is a part is defined by open standards from Ecma, WHATWG, W3C, IETF. We survived plugins dying (and good riddance, in general; credit to Flash for filling gaps and still doing things the standard Web cannot do well -- this is to the shame of the Web, no argument). Ok, so proprietary or not, plugins died and that has costs. But they are borne by sites who dropped those plugins, one by one. They are not imposed (at least not till Brave, or now with the plan to kill Flash by 2020 among Adobe and the big four browsers) from the client side. Again, the browser-market game theory does not work. Please respond to this clear and well-defined point :-P. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
