- From: Matthew Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 03:11:10 +1200
On 27 Aug, 2004, at 1:17 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> It wouldn't make life any easier for authors. They would still have to >> handle the no-submit case, for the same reasons they have to handle >> invalid dates and all the rest -- to cater for non-WF2 clients (and >> for defective/malicious submittors). >> >> Nor would it make life any easier for UA implementors. It would just >> give them fewer choices about how to design their code. > > Fewer choices makes things easier for implementors. Then why not say "You must use Gecko"? It's available under the LGPL, after all. >> So why make it a requirement? > > Undefined behaviour is bad. It makes it hard to get interoperability. > On matters like this, IMHO interoperability is very important. > ... Narrowing a specification to *forbid* the hitherto-correct behavior followed by the 95%-dominant UA may achieve a variety of good and useful things, but interoperability is manifestly not one of them. I would greatly appreciate receiving a genuine answer. -- Matthew Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 08:11:10 UTC