Re: [whatwg/dom] Define cloning steps for an select element (#644)

@domenic My comment said nothing about writing less code. What my comment is fundamentally about is that I am of the opinion that the DOM should be intuitive and free of surprises. And the cloneNode behavior is not because of how it interacts with <select>.

Additionally I'm just going to point out that the backwards incompatibility bludgeon that you and others like to wield when it suits you has been thoroughly debunked by @bes-internal's comment, profanity notwithstanding.

The reason I commented on this thread in the first place is because I tripped over the cloneNode behavior again this week and because of the ECMAScript working group. A few years ago I watched a video from some developer conference where someone from the ECMAScript working group pleaded with the audience of developers to get involved with the people and groups that produce the specs for the technology that they use everyday. So after years of thinking that spec groups were filled with tone deaf pompous [expletive here] and thus not worth the effort and the fact that the W3C proved me right, I decided to try to change my mind and listen to the ECMAScript guy and engage. I'm telling you this story because it's one possible explanation of why this issue isn't popular. In other words, most developers are not going to join the conversation about making a better web platform. But I'm trying to. And changing the cloneNode behavior is one small thing in a HUGE platform that can  improve the DOM because at a minimum it would mean that the DOM has one less sharp edge.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/644#issuecomment-443247568