Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

On Oct 3, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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:
>>> 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?

I can live with those APIs behaving as described in the current HTML5  
draft. I believe the behavior proposed in the Microsoft proposal is  
unacceptable for Web compatibility, so I can't live with that. So you  
have an opinion, or a different behavior you'd like to propose?


Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 14:00:57 UTC