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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:20:38 -0800
Message-ID: <441D68B6.9060606@sicking.cc>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> If that was our only criteria then I would say the spec should look 
>> vastly different. I still think our main goal with this spec is define 
>> something that shows what works today. Both from an implementor and from 
>> an authors point of view.
> 
> What pain should the specification solve? You seem to be saying that the
> pain is lack of documentation what works, while Anne says the pain is
> that different implementations do and support different things. I think
> solving Anne's pain is easier and more useful.

I guess i'm trying to solve both, but the latter is more important. But 
I would say "content and implementations" rather then just implementations.

I'm arguing that making onreadystatechange an EventListener will not 
solve the pain of different implementations (and content) doing 
different things. First of all IE does not support this and it is highly 
unlikly that it would in any resonable amount of time. Especially given 
that it doesn't support W3C DOM Events.

And since hardly any content relies on it being an EventListener we're 
not helping implementations either.

The only advantage I can see is API 'clean-ness'. This is definitely an 
important thing when defining new features, but here I value 
compatibility higher.

/Jonas
Received on Sunday, 19 March 2006 14:20:43 GMT

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