[Bug 17176] Element attributes should not be required to be stored in an ordered list, .innerHTML remains unspecified

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17176

--- Comment #7 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2012-05-31 15:09:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Interesting.  But we should still want to specify some kind of order, right? 
> There's no reason for this not to be interoperable.  In that case, is there any
> reason to not spec it as just being the same order as markup?  It sounds like
> the constraints you mention are compatible with that requirement, and it's the
> most obvious and simple way to do it.  In fact, it's so obvious and simple that
> that's how I thought browsers all worked until you just educated me right now. 
> :)

If Trident and Gecko get away with non-obvious attribute orders, it means the
order doesn't really matter. It would be a shame to require Trident and Gecko
to do something that doesn't really matter but that would either require them
to change data structures in a fundamental way or to complicate their existing
data structures by adding book-keeping data about the original order.

(In many cases, it's easy to incorrectly hypothesize that Gecko keeps the
attribute order, so Gecko isn't a strong point of evidence in the direction
that order doesn't matter. However, I think Trident is a strong piece of
evidence, since it makes it very obvious that the order isn't preserved, so no
script that has even superficially being tested with Trident can rely on the
iteration order of attributes.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:10:08 UTC