- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:08:14 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie >> <stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote: >>> The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous >>> drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the >>> bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm >>> since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed. >> >> This is matches what implementations do. > > I don't think we need to match step-by-step what implementations do. > It's already been concluded that we can't create an XHR spec that follow > exactly what the current major browsers do, since they are in conflict. > > I've said this many times before (in the context of other specs), but it > bears repeating: I think it's worth sacrificing a little compatibility > if that makes for a better spec. Every time we add extra complexity for > the sake of being compatible with a browser we should ask ourselves, > what is the cost (spec complexity) versus value (few more sites would > work out-of-the-box). The more obscure the edgecases the smaller the > value is and the higher the cost is. > > This does mean breaking with IE sometimes, and of course with > Firefox/Opera/Safari too. FWIW, not even Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to just blindly follow IE. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0654.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0736.html search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are willing to fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 21:11:05 UTC