- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:03:11 +0200
- To: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, "Stewart Brodie" <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
- Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:01:23 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:58:30 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie >> <stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote: >>> The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous >>> drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the >>> bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm >>> since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed. >> >> This is matches what implementations do. > > I'm quite late to the party but as a general comment I think there is > such a thing as a quirk that no real life sites rely on, or are > extremely unlikely to rely on, in which case it would not need to become > standardised. For a corner case like this my gut feeling would be to > only add it to the spec if content was found that depended on this > behaviour. We have two choices: getting Internet Explorer and Firefox changed or specify what they do and have other browsers align with them. I personally don't think the former is doable here. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2007 14:03:51 UTC