- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:20:38 -0800
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Jonas Sicking wrote: >> If that was our only criteria then I would say the spec should look >> vastly different. I still think our main goal with this spec is define >> something that shows what works today. Both from an implementor and from >> an authors point of view. > > What pain should the specification solve? You seem to be saying that the > pain is lack of documentation what works, while Anne says the pain is > that different implementations do and support different things. I think > solving Anne's pain is easier and more useful. I guess i'm trying to solve both, but the latter is more important. But I would say "content and implementations" rather then just implementations. I'm arguing that making onreadystatechange an EventListener will not solve the pain of different implementations (and content) doing different things. First of all IE does not support this and it is highly unlikly that it would in any resonable amount of time. Especially given that it doesn't support W3C DOM Events. And since hardly any content relies on it being an EventListener we're not helping implementations either. The only advantage I can see is API 'clean-ness'. This is definitely an important thing when defining new features, but here I value compatibility higher. /Jonas
Received on Sunday, 19 March 2006 14:20:43 UTC