- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:40:29 +0200
- To: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Simon Pieters schrieb: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:32:41 +0200, Chris Wilson > <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> If today's content rely on them, then why not? >> >> As I said, I'm okay with that path if that's what others want, but I >> don't think implementing exactly IE's behavior (including DOM) is >> their goal. > > Since three browser vendors have successfully developed rendering > engines that operate on a real DOM tree, that suggests to me that > today's content doesn't rely on the DOM not being a tree (IE's model). > If today's content doesn't rely on it, the spec can say something sane. > (If I'm wrong here, then indeed we would have to spec the broken DOM > model.) > >> Some IE-specific stuff that's become popular, sure. But not >> everything. And we can't change, in content that is not identified as >> "new", the fact that getElementByID picks up 'name' attributes too, or >> whatever. > > Then make the getElementById spec require that name attributes are > picked up. If an implementation doesn't make sense and some quirky sites rely on that, that souldn't affect the entire web. --Dao
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 08:40:55 UTC