- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:51:14 +0500
- To: public-html@w3.org, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:08:28 +0500, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:29:26 +0200, Charles McCathie Nevile > <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >>> That can be a valid argument, but, if it is required for compat, its >>> behavior should be in the spec. >> >> This assumes that the requirement for compatibility or the spec's >> coverage >> of everything is sufficiently universal. That seems like a poor >> assumption. If it were true, I would be worried about whether the spec >> would be doing the right task. >> >> The web is *different* in different countries, languages and markets. >> The extent to which it should meet everyone's requirements is a question >> of judgement. But it would appear that we can judge the question of >> whether it *does* by the extent to which they are prepared to change >> things to meet it. People's perceptions of their market is unlikely to >> be perfect. I believe that includes the Working Group and its editors. >> >> So the fact that a spec forbids something strikes me as a poor argument >> that it is therefore not needed in some market. > > Yes. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the opposite. If some > vendor makes the case that something is needed for compat in some > market, we should add it to the spec (assuming other vendors don't > object). This happens from time to time (e.g. <keygen>). Certainly. But I believe that from time to time such suggestions from a browser are rejected. I know that comments from other kinds of implementers are rejected. And it is pretty clear that many browser developers aren't even providing feedback (Yandex is teh only vendor I know who is primarily non-english that *is* providing feedback - I don't recall anything from dolphin, tencent, 360, UCWeb, Baidu - just to name fairly big companies). >>> In the case of <bgsound>, Gecko and WebKit never found it being big >>> enough compat loss not to support it, and Presto even intentionally >>> dropped support. >> >> Sure. I fail to see what useful information this provides about whether >> it matters to IE. > > What other browsers do is a useful data point when a browser vendor is > deciding whether to support something or not. It's not the only data > point, but one that is often used. Sure. >> More generally, it still appears that the assertion "things not >> permitted by the spec are forbidden" is basically untrue, > > Not in general, I think. In general, the spec requires what to do, and > what it doesn't say must not be done. Is there a statement of this in the spec? (In *any* HTML spec?) > In the case of supporting elements not defined in the spec, the spec > allows it with a "should not". i.e., what the next paragraph says. >> and that the assertion >> that supporting elements not defined in the HTML5 spec (or in WHAT-WG >> drafts as of today) makes a browser non-conformant is explicitly untrue. > > Yes. But a UA claiming to be conforming would have to state what the > reasons are for violating the "should not" in order to be convincing. :-) Well, it depends who has to be convinced. How does "Фича очень важная дла 3 клиентов которие не можем сказать" work as a statement - is that sufficiently convincing? >> For what it's worth, that seems like the right situation to me. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 11:51:59 UTC