W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [dom3core] getAttribute

From: Kasimier Buchcik <K.Buchcik@4commerce.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:16:33 +0100
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: ML-www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1133435793.1272.77.camel@librax>

Hi,

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 11:38 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:33:32 +0100, Kasimier Buchcik  
> <K.Buchcik@4commerce.de> wrote:
> > IMHO the effort to make things work should be directed to those
> > who wrote those broken sites.
> 
> We have spend (wasted) quite some time on that. Problem here is that  
> Internet Explorer does different (returns NULL) and so does Mozilla. And  
> Safari. I wonder if developers really care about standards, probably a lot  
> more about interoperability.

Obviously a very restricted interoperability, since, as already said,
such code would not work with programming languages which cannot return
NULL if the return type is a DOMString.

Additionally is seems awkward to treat a bug - which someone invented
and which obviously was not recognized as being a bug early enough -
as a base for interoperability issues.
Maybe it's only me, but I feel a bit frustrated about how happily
folks are accepting 'historical' issues nowadays.

I understand that browser developers are under pressure to accomodate
some questionable arguments of people using those browsers: "hey, it
works with funky IE, so why not with yours?!". So actually it's a
matter of how much you are scared of people complaining about
nonsense. Fortunately I'm not under such pressure and thus I'm
in the lucky position to disallow broken DOM code in my world.

But maybe the damage is really already done, and DOM implementations
of browsers will differ from other DOM implementations; not exactly
the intention of a DOM API, is it?

Regards,

Kasimier
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 11:16:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:58 GMT