- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:55:59 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10345 --- Comment #9 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-10-01 18:55:59 UTC --- Given: http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/dom/webidl/attributes/ http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090714#l-102 ...I'm not really sure what it means, in practice, for an attribute to be signed or unsigned, from a historical perspective. Given how bad the interop is here, I think it might be better to just go with sanity, which the spec, IMHO, is closer to than most browsers. In particular, I'm not sure Gecko's behaviour here is necessarily more sensible than any other browser's. They're all pretty nutty. However, I am very open to changing the spec here, if we know what we want to change it _to_. It's not clear to me that DOM2 HTML is any more sensible (or closer to interop) here than what we have here in DOM5 HTML. Any opinions? Maybe we should WONTFIX this overall bug and just consider changes on a per-attribute basis? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 18:56:04 UTC