W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2006

Re: ISSUE-43: change to "common baseline"?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:59:24 +0100
To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s6nsxatt64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:36:34 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Would it really break backwards compatibility for ECMA-script  
> implementations to change onreadystatechange from being a Function to  
> being an EventListener?
>
> A function following the version 1 spec will not take any arguments.  
> Such a function should work fine as an EventListener in version 2, it  
> just would not get access to the Event object.
>
> Or are you worried about other bindings?

The thing is that web browsers (as in Opera, Firefox, Safari, Internet  
Explorer) are not the only browsers that will implement this  
specification. For new implementations (SVG viewers for example) it makes  
no sense to follow version 1.0 of the specification in the case that  
version 2.0 would "contradict" it. Now that doesn't make sense to me.

The specification should just state what should be implemented. If that  
isn't the case in some implementations they simply have to be fixed. In  
the end we need two conforming implementations anyway. (Or, whatever we  
decide for CR exit critera.)

Things like "UAs SHOULD support send() without arguments" are also just no  
good for exactly those reasons. It's fine for UAs to be non-conformant to  
every part of the specification. Those things are called bugs. Bugs should  
not affect the specification imho, only some non-normative appendix on  
authoring guidelines. (Sorry for not objecting earlier.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 19 March 2006 11:59:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:53 GMT