That's not a very accurate summary. I think you're probably referring to [1] which says
> because polyfills are really hard to get right and we should treat everything as insecure and wrong by default ... I took a brief look at your code and I don't think it's spec-compliant enough to be advertised as a polyfill/ponyfill because it is prone to global pollution.
They then demonstrate that it's not compliant, which the contributor seems to think is not relevant.
Mostly, this contributor comes across as hurt that their PR wasn't immediately merged by virtue of their many years in the field. I might be missing something here though which puts the MDN team in the wrong, but...
> because polyfills are really hard to get right and we should treat everything as insecure and wrong by default ... I took a brief look at your code and I don't think it's spec-compliant enough to be advertised as a polyfill/ponyfill because it is prone to global pollution.
They then demonstrate that it's not compliant, which the contributor seems to think is not relevant.
Mostly, this contributor comes across as hurt that their PR wasn't immediately merged by virtue of their many years in the field. I might be missing something here though which puts the MDN team in the wrong, but...
[1] https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294#issuecomment-24076...