- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > [...] It does improve interoperability, in that new browsers are more > > likely to do the spec thing than just pick a random behaviour. > > _Defining it_ improves interoperability, agreed. I think that Matthew's > point was that defining it to be the _opposite_ from the current market > leader can't really be said to improve interoperability in the short > term. True, on the short term it doesn't really change much. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 10:27:36 UTC