On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:17:04 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> (I'm interested both in having existing behavior documented, but also >>> to have precise APIs for future implementations) >> Right, me too. The problem is that you can't do both at the same time. > > Sort of. That we can't change legacy implementations is true, but we > *can* describe how things should be done in future implementations. (Is > there a timeline for a revision that takes us there???) We are describing how things should be done in future implementations and revisions of current implementations while remaining as backwards compatible as possible. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Sunday, 18 February 2007 11:20:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT