Re: typeof document.all

On Oct 15, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>> Of course some people are enthusiastic about "specifying every
>> observable effect" modulo hardware or other limits. I think that's  
>> good
>> in general and misguided when applied blindly to everything in HTML5.
>
> I agree that it's good in general, and I agree that it's misguided  
> when
> applied blindly.

You wrote:

"Personally I would be against underspecifying anything that can be
black-box tested from a Web page."

No qualification based on minimal reality-based interoperation  
requirements, direct and opportunity costs, or anything other than  
black-box test differentiation.


> I do not think this is a case of it being applied blindly.

Mozilla, WebKit, and Opera do not emulate undetected document.all the  
same way but there aren't interop bug reports about our differences,  
AFAICT.

Please open your eyes to this relevant factoid, and take it into  
account in where you work to specify fully, since you cannot specify  
everything that might matter fully in any bounded amount of time, and  
you agree that things like GC cycles are more important and currently  
underserved..

/be