- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:35:16 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> > On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:25:01 +0200, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote: >> This is another difference that is not compatible with existing >> implementations, why is the 3 not a SHOULD? to meet the goals of being >> compatible with existing implementations. >> >> Which is a seperate issue I know, but it hasn't been resolved from when >> I raised it last time... > > You got a reply > http://www.w3.org/mid/op.s9jem2h364w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com on that > one. Please keep that issue out of this thread. That was your personal opinion, and not a decision by the group... currently I do not believe any of todays user agents could pass a test suite of the XHR object, if that's the case then I think it's difficult to claim that we're defining a common subset that authors can rely on. That may of course be fine, but if it is then we should stop pretending we're trying to define what people can rely on. My view is that like Moz's (null) bug, we should make it a SHOULD so authors know they cannot rely on the behaviour currently. Jim.
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 12:35:36 UTC