- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 17:41:31 +0100
Jim Ley wrote: >>>> Personally, I'm beginning to think we shouldn't worry about IE. We >>>>could just tell everyone running IE with Javascript disabled that if >>>>they want to use Web Apps 1.0, they either need JS turned on or they >>>>need to get a standards compliant browser. >>>Your audience for WF-2 is not IE users, it's web form authors, they're >>>the people you have to provide something new, they demand IE >>>compatibility, indeed most couldn't care about anything other than IE. >>Matthew was talking specifically about the Web Applications spec, not >>about Web Forms 2. > Oh, so the audience for Web Applications, is not about for backwards > compatibility? in that case there are other specs available to do > the job, no need to bother it. Did I say it wasn't? In any case, I imagine it does require *some* level of backward compatibility - though exactly what form that is is probably not yet well understood. From the WHATWG charter: "All specifications produced by this working group must take into account backwards compatibility, and clearly specify reasonable transition strategies for authors" -- http://whatwg.org/charter#back-compat Regards, Malcolm
Received on Sunday, 4 July 2004 09:41:31 UTC