- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:41:44 -0700
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Not sure why it's the opposite but I may be missing something. The advantage of allowing extensibility with an extension processing model of "ignore" is that a future version of HTML could do something with the extra arguments in a compatible way with this version. If multiple arguments are not allowed, then there can never be a compatible evolution of HTML that allows multiple arguments. Exactly akin to HTML's longstanding practice of allow extra markup and ignoring unknown markup. In general, I like the model of allowing extra things and requiring they be (roughly speaking) ignored. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:19 PM > To: David Orchard > Cc: Anne van Kesteren; HTML WG > Subject: RE: HTMLDocument interface for write() and writeln() > needs an update > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, David Orchard wrote: > > > > I meant that we should make it explicit that multiple arguments are > > allowed and the extra ones are ignored in this version. > > Isn't that the exact opposite of what we want? > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E > )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ > _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. > `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 22:42:32 UTC