Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Few suggestions #802

kangax opened this issue May 24, 2016 · 5 comments

Few suggestions #802

kangax opened this issue May 24, 2016 · 5 comments


Copy link

kangax commented May 24, 2016

Got an email about some suggestions:

A few suggestions for improvements.

  • In the header cells for "Chrome 50, 51, 52" there is "[0]"
    but down below there is no 0 footnote.
    I see some text before the first footnote but it does not have a [0] designation.
  • The columns for Chrome 50 and 51 have flags but the column for 52 does not.
    Without knowing what that [0] really refers to, its hard to know if this is a mistake
    or not but it looks suspicious as I see some other footnotes are relevant to flag.
  • There is no mention of the JS Module system for ES6.
    Google is lousy at describing what is in or out of one of their releases.
    That's why I use your tool!
    I've seen others on the web confused by this and
    even mention that your compatibility table doesn't mention it.
    Even if you don't want to include modules in your table,
    having a note about them would help us as it seems like an odd omission.
  • The left most column header for "current browser" should tell
    us what the current browser is, ie "Ch 50"
    The way it is is analogous to you asking someone what
    time it is and they say "now". True but unhelpful.
Copy link

ljharb commented May 24, 2016

To these four points - 1 is clearly a bug, 2 may be related. For 3, ES6 modules simply don't exist yet, and absent a loader spec, I don't think we should be mentioning it in the table, even if some browsers implement something via flags. I'd, however, love to see some sort of test that imports something, just to see that it works absent a loader spec (which it should not).

+1000 for 4, we should have fixed that long ago.

webbedspace added a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2016
Copy link

webxl commented Jul 28, 2016

I think modules need to be mentioned (even if they cannot yet be tested) because they are part of the es6 spec and the purpose of this table is to inform people on each browser's compatibility. The omission has caused an experienced JS developer like myself to question whether or not they really are part of the spec. I can't imagine what it's like for beginners.

Copy link

ljharb commented Jul 28, 2016

@webxl import and export syntax, and module parsing semantics, are in the spec. However, you can't actually test those things with what's in the spec - so "mentioning" them is fine, if it's just a banner at the top saying "ES modules do not exist yet".

Copy link

webxl commented Aug 26, 2016

Looks like modules got the go ahead over at #316. I really just had a problem with a "100%" rating implying that the browser has every ES6 feature when there's no way to test for it. Hopefully that addition (and reduction in compatibility) will lead to more and more vendors releasing this as an experimental feature, like the Edge team did.

@chicoxyzzy chicoxyzzy mentioned this issue Nov 22, 2016
Copy link

chicoxyzzy commented Nov 22, 2016

Remaining issues splitted into #969 and #316

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet

No branches or pull requests

4 participants