W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Versioning and html[5]

From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:40:29 +0200
Message-ID: <461F41FD.6090204@design-noir.de>
To: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Simon Pieters schrieb:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:32:41 +0200, Chris Wilson 
> <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If today's content rely on them, then why not?
>>
>> As I said, I'm okay with that path if that's what others want, but I 
>> don't think implementing exactly IE's behavior (including DOM) is 
>> their goal.
> 
> Since three browser vendors have successfully developed rendering 
> engines that operate on a real DOM tree, that suggests to me that 
> today's content doesn't rely on the DOM not being a tree (IE's model). 
> If today's content doesn't rely on it, the spec can say something sane. 
> (If I'm wrong here, then indeed we would have to spec the broken DOM 
> model.)
> 
>>  Some IE-specific stuff that's become popular, sure.  But not 
>> everything.  And we can't change, in content that is not identified as 
>> "new", the fact that getElementByID picks up 'name' attributes too, or 
>> whatever.
> 
> Then make the getElementById spec require that name attributes are 
> picked up.

If an implementation doesn't make sense and some quirky sites rely on 
that, that souldn't affect the entire web.

--Dao
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 08:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT