- 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