-
-
-
Replying to @really_bz1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @mathias
@mathias@gsnedders Is that supposed to be a diff against ES5 or ES6?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz@gsnedders It’s supposed to be a diff against the latest available version.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mathias
@mathias@gsnedders That would be http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html … but then I don't get the String.prototype section of http://javascript.spec.whatwg.org/3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz If your point is that it can be removed from http://javascript.spec.whatwg.org/#string at this point, then sure, you’re right. +@gsnedders1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mathias
@mathias@gsnedders Yeah, I was just trying to figure out what incompatibilities remained between "ECMAScript" and "BrowserScript".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz
@bz_moz@mathias@gsnedders Ideally "BrowserScript" spec would describe only the diff. Id-ly, wouldn't even exist (integrated in other spec)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@DavidBruant +9001 +@bz_moz @gsnedders
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
JavaScript, HTML, CSS, HTTP, performance, security, Bash, Unicode, i18n, macOS.