- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:00:22 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
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: >> 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? 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? Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 14:00:57 UTC