- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:11:05 +0100
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:23:13 +0100, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote: > Jim Ley wrote: > >>1) How likely is it that a UA that supports WebForms 2 but not DOM > >>will emerge? > >> > >> > >I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. > > > > > No, it's not. WF2 incorporates by reference DOM2 HTML and DOM3 Core, > among others. You can't implement a WF2 UA without support for them: So WF2 requires scripting support in the UA's? Can I request once again that the WHATWG get some people with some accessibility knowledge into the WG since requiring scripting is simply not possible, the AT's are simply not able to deal with it. In any case, I don't see ECMAScript listed as a requirement, so it's still possible that non-JS DOM bindings and WF2 UA's will exist. > Have you also complained in www-dom that all the W3C DOM specs rely on > 'de-facto behaviour'? The W3 DOM specs do not rely on that de-facto behaviour at all, the example script did, I have indeed commented about the lack of a window object with it's associated lack of document property. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:11:05 UTC