- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:29:18 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> For HTMLFormElement, it seems only IE implements them. Are they >> >> really necessary to have in the spec? >> > >> > The real question is, is Microsoft willing to remove support for this >> > feature? (in all modes, not just in some DOCTYPE-triggered ghetto) >> > >> > If not, then the simplest way of getting interop would be for everyone >> > to just implement these features. They're not that much of a burden, >> > surely? >> >> This is clearly not the only qualification for if a feature should stay. >> Or are you arguing we should add VML and vbscript to HTML5 as well? > > There's a world of difference between supporting making an object callable > and implementing an entire scripting language. I wouldn't expect the > burden of implementing an entire scripting language to be a light thing. > > Personally I just want interop. I don't really mind how we get there. I > also acknowledge that the journey is long. We have to do it piecemeal. My point is that statments like "unless vendor X is willing to remove it we have to keep it in" is not the criterion by which we should judge if a feature should stay in. That would mean that the web platform is a union of all bad ideas added to any browser through any point in history. We need to be more conservative than that. If vendors can point to specific reasons why they added this feature, then we at least have reasons that we can debate. If they don't, then I'm surprised as to why they wouldn't be willing to at least attempt to remove it. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 08:30:11 UTC