- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 05:46:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010130545250.8618@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Various HTML*Collection interfaces and the HTMLFormElement interface > define callers. Callers seem unpopular with many people, so I am > wondering how many can actually be safely removed from the spec. > > Here are some tests I ran to see where they’re implemented: > > http://people.mozilla.com/~cmccormack/tests/callers.html > http://people.mozilla.com/~cmccormack/tests/callers-quirks.html > > The results are here: > > http://people.mozilla.com/~cmccormack/tests/callers-results.html > > (I left out the HTMLPropertyCollection ones since nobody implements that > yet.) > > So of all the callers, Firefox has been getting away with only > implementing document.all("blah"), and only for quirks mode. > > For HTMLFormElement, it seems only IE implements them. Are they really > necessary to have in the spec? The real question is, is Microsoft willing to remove support for this feature? (in all modes, not just in some DOCTYPE-triggered ghetto) If not, then the simplest way of getting interop would be for everyone to just implement these features. They're not that much of a burden, surely? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 05:47:28 UTC