Re: philosophy Re: Conformance requirements on browsers

On 9/16/13 4:51 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:08:28 +0500, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> 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?

Sounds like something that could live behind an off-by-default 
configuration flag, given that information...

-Boris

Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 14:16:04 UTC