Re: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification

On Jan 5, 2010, at 18:23, Paul Cotton wrote:

> We should all remember that the following text is in the Status section of each HTML5 WD:
> Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.

James' point that was quoted was about the ability of Web *authors* to use a feature given the browsers that are out there. Both authors who take part in the discussions and who don't need to deal with the behaviors that browsers that are out there exhibit regardless why they exhibit those behaviors.

As far as I can tell, the only sure precaution *implementors* could take to protect authors from browsers shipping with a given behavior that the WG might want to change later would be not shipping implementations until the spec is known not to change anymore. Even REC doesn't guarantee that in practice. Even if it did, it seems that the longer the period from implementation to shipping is, the less attractive it is to become the first-mover who sees if the spec is implementable in practice.

Should Microsoft not have shipped localStorage until CR or REC? If no one had shipped localStorage yet, the whole storage mutex problem could go away by changing the localStorage API to be asynchronous / transactional.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 12:22:07 UTC