- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote: >> >> Fewer choices makes things easier for implementors. > > Then why not say "You must use Gecko"? It's available under the LGPL, > after all. Because Gecko has too-high performance requirements for some devices, and because the LGPL is much too restrictive for some uses. > > > 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. We could define it the other way (the IE way) if you prefer, but it seems to me that having the "default button" be successful is technically better. It does improve interoperability, in that new browsers are more likely to do the spec thing than just pick a random behaviour. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 08:51:18 UTC