W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: DOM4 Core

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:27:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910192322460.26598@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > I just don't want to end up in a situation where a feature is 
> > implemented almost everywhere but not in the spec.
> 
> So does this mean that you'll add back Theora if it's implemented in 
> Opera, Mozilla and Chrome? ;)
>
> My point is that you're inconsistent here. Previously a feature hasn't 
> been put in the spec if some vendor says that they won't implement it. 
> In this case you seem to be doing the opposite, and not remove it from 
> the spec unless all major vendors agree to remove it.
> 
> I sent a formal request to have .tags removed from HTMLCollection to the 
> whatwg list.

I think there's a difference between 4 out of 5 and 3 out of 5; and I 
think there's a difference between one spec requiring that another spec be 
implemented, and one spec including or not including a feature.

If browsers support something, then we want them to do it in an 
interoperable way, which means that there needs to be a spec for that 
feature. There _is_ a spec for Theora, the question is just whether it 
should be implemented or not. With tags(), there is no other spec.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 23:15:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:04 GMT