- From: Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:58:34 -0700
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On 4/23/06, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > The case you've presented makes a number of assumptions, including that > ... Of course assumptions were made, but the point was that the assumptions aren't at all far fetched and that the cases they cover are not even in the minority. It's a series of problems that has surfaced many times and will again given the same restrictions imposed by the WG. > ... You would make a better point if you > could point out the features currently missing but likely to be im- > plemented in virtually all browsers in the forseeable future. That would be nice if that were possible. On 4/23/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by citing this example. I think it's actually a > perfect example of why you'd want UA extensions prefixed. See for example: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93156#c0 That's an unfortunate ripple in that case. Most of what I said assumed that one vendor implemented a feature in a certain way and the rest implemented it in the same way (save for IE). In this case it seems clear that the WG's job should be to specify the agreed upon behavior, so the kind of problem mentioned in that bug wouldn't be addressed at all. On 4/23/06, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > * Implementations SHOULD add new methods rather than changing return > types, parameter types, number of required or optional parameters or > behavior of existing methods (except where explicitly stated otherwise). > > * Implementations SHOULD add new attributes rather than changing the > type, behavior or readonly status of existing attributes (except > where explicitly stated otherwise). Completely agreed. +1 -- Brad Fults NeatBox
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 05:58:47 UTC