Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Brad Fults wrote:
On 4/4/06, Web APIs Issue Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A.2) Define using a TimerListener interface which is meant only for
other languages, while ECMAScript only actually allows strings or
functions to be passed.
I (and others) strongly advise against specifying a timer interface
that accepts strings of code as executable input.
It can continue to exist as an implemented behavior, but as it
essentially uses eval() for its functionality, it should be strongly
discouraged, and certainly not officially specified.
I don't think the right way to make coding style suggestions is to fail
to specify things. To be interoperable with a considerable amount of
existing web content, UAs MUST implement the string interface. Note that
the ECMAScript spec includes eval(), even though many contributors to
the specification dislike it.
On the other hand, I would be happy to put a note in the spec that the
string interface is discouraged for content authors. I agree that it is
better in all respects to use a function, when writing new JS code that
uses the Window interface.
Also to note, Compact (Mobile) ECMAScript profile (ECMA-372) doesn't
require eval() and thus would probably prevent timeout String method
from beeing implemented.
I think it would be one more argument to not require it in Window spec.
--
Christophe
