- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:27:43 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27718 Bug ID: 27718 Summary: Avoid removing anything harmless Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DOM Assignee: annevk@annevk.nl Reporter: brettz9@yahoo.com QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org This is just a general comment that I would hope that interfaces such as those at http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#dom-core would not be removed unless there was some critical reason to alter or remove support for them such as to harmonize conflicting browser implementations. In the spirit of what I thought was the reason behind the rejection of XHTML 2 in the first place, it makes sense to add features without breaking compatibility. Just because attribute nodes or such are not all the rage does not make it fair for the minority of applications that use them. I hope we can be tolerant and be forward-looking where we can allow posterity to see or use very old applications as time goes forward without needing a re-write. Unlike platforms such as browser extension APIs which seem to gleefully leave minor developers in the dust by frequently changing their APIs and forcing them to accommodate, I would hope that at least HTML would continue on in the relatively stable form it has. I also feel that it is important to keep the precedent now of avoiding breaking changes so that future implementers will not be tempted to refer to breaking changes now as "acceptable losses" and instead preserve a tradition of making the web continue to work for everyone. If there are optimization or memory benefits to removing the interfaces, perhaps an HTML equivalent to JavaScript's strict mode could be added (though the empty DOCTYPE would not be adequate to this purpose since apps have already been built relying on it while still using the older interfaces). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 18:27:45 UTC