- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:52:47 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Philip Taylor wrote: >>> Adrian Bateman wrote: >>>> The proposal as stated closely matches behavior that Internet >>>> Explorer has had for a number of releases, reducing compatibility >>>> concerns. >>> This claim does not match my experience. >> >> From an IE perspective, the proposal is to change exactly one API, and >> to do so in a way that aligns completely with the definition in the >> current HTML5 Working Draft, and to implement three APIs that IE had >> previously not implemented. > > The following email includes about ten other differences between IE's > behavior and the proposal, besides the four you mention: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0040.html > >> I can see how somebody could see that as closely matching the behavior >> that Internet Explorer has had for a number of releases. > > The implied claim seems to be, "This is pretty much what IE does, and IE > works with the existing Web, so this should work with the existing Web > too." I don't think that logic holds. If we can all agree that the claim that you believe is implied is specious, can we move on to discussing the APIs which are in dispute? > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 13:53:28 UTC