- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:19:46 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On May 8, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren 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 don't think we need to match step-by-step what implementations >> do. It's already been concluded that we can't create an XHR spec >> that follow exactly what the current major browsers do, since they >> are in conflict. >> I've said this many times before (in the context of other specs), >> but it bears repeating: I think it's worth sacrificing a little >> compatibility if that makes for a better spec. Every time we add >> extra complexity for the sake of being compatible with a browser >> we should ask ourselves, what is the cost (spec complexity) versus >> value (few more sites would work out-of-the-box). The more obscure >> the edgecases the smaller the value is and the higher the cost is. >> This does mean breaking with IE sometimes, and of course with >> Firefox/Opera/Safari too. > > FWIW, not even Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to just blindly > follow IE. See: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0654.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0736.html > > search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are > willing to fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do. No, they are not willing to fix their engine. They just want other browsers to follow the "clean and logical" behavior in the spec while IE preserves the old behavior for existing content forever. At least that's my understanding of their messages about versioning. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 22:20:01 UTC