On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, L. David Baron wrote: > > I don't think we should standardize every browser maker's failed (due to > > lack of adoption) experiments at feature additions just because the > > browser maker won't remove them. > > I agree, but the question is whether in this case there really is a lack > of adoption (in content), or whether on the contrary, non-IE browsers are > being disadvantaged because they don't support this feature. That's a good question. As far as we know, Gecko is not disadvantaged. > I agree that > if the content using this is insignificant, that we should drop the > feature, but then why would Microsoft not want to simplify their code and > drop it also? > There are many possible reasons. Perhaps the feature has significant usage in IE-only arcologies. Perhaps they don't know, but they fear it might, and the risk outweighs the benefits to them of removing the feature. Perhaps they have adopted principles of never changing anything that aren't always optimal for the Web platform. Perhaps they haven't considered it at all. Rob -- "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 19:55:17 UTC