- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:56:26 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Oct 9, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:39:02 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak > <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >>> Are you open to making undetected-document.all emulation depend on >>> an HTML standards vs. quirks mode switch? >> >> I think that would be a reasonable option, if that's enough to get >> the bulk of the compatibility benefit and if other implementors are >> on board. > > What's the benefit? Keeping document.all out of standards documents so it is not perpetuated by accident or intentionally. With the Web, if something "works" it will happen. In ten years' time we will have content using document.all but it should be shrinking. It's impossible to say when or whether it goes away but it is likelier to be more widespread, all else equal, if we don't confine it to quirks mode. FYI, when we implemented undetected document.all emulation, we did it only for quirks-mode documents. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/ DOM_Implementation_and_Scriptability#The_Mozilla_DOM_vs._the_IE_DOM > In general I think we should try to minimize the number of > differences between rendering modes. Having differences add > implementation complexity and QA cost. My sincerely blunt reaction: too bad. Having legacy crap in standards mode tends to perpetuate it. The greater good favors complexity for implementors and QA on this front. It's not as if undetected document.all emulation is easy to implement or QA! > Browsers could log in their error console about usage of > document.all to discourage authors from using it. This is about as effective as nagging users not to use IE-specific CSS, i.e., not at all. /be
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 18:57:54 UTC