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

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)