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 22:23:40 +0100
To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s6oi1qvz64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:20:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> [...] 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.

Sure, but does that mean new implementions should not do it that way  
either?


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

We are. Telling them what it "eventually" will be helps them implementing  
it right from the start. Instead of having to revise the implementation  
for version 2.0.


> 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.

Try to see it as if we're defining a new feature. It should be clear to  
implementors what they have to do without too many open questions or  
things that might change in a revision. That some of the aspects of this  
new feature have some implementations already and that they don't  
interoperate "on this and that point" can be put in an appendix imho.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 19 March 2006 21:23:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT