- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:38:33 -0400
Jim Ley wrote:
>>>Yes there is, keep implementations to non-shipped, or optional modes
>>>so that we can prove the concept without actually having any sites use
>>>the behaviour, implementations required for ensuring the spec is sane,
>>>and implementations shipped are vefry different things.
>>
>> And then the implementation can be held hostage by the standards
>>bodies for as long as they want. No thanks.
>
> So it's better to have bad behaviour shipped to users, than waiting
> until it's fixed? Standards bodies don't hold implementations
> hostage.
Who are you kidding? Remember a little thing called XBL? The
original W3C note is over three years old and we're still waiting.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
I wouldn't be surprised if Ian is forced to create a WHAT WG XBL2
specification when it comes time to work on Web Controls 1.0.
>>In legacy clients, we don't have a fixed format for
>>submission, so we have to ensure the submitted date has a SPECIFIC one.
>
> Which has been my point all along, yet no-one has provide a way that
> legacy clients can be told the specific format without confusing the
> WF2 users. Other than your ignore element approach, but I can't find
> an ignore element anywhere in the current draft, so I don't feel
> that's yet appropriate.
It's not in the draft because Ian has shot down every version of it
I have suggested. Hence the joke about me running away from him after
suggesting its use.
>> Which, as you admit, is an arbitrary number you picked, and you've
>>already stated that you need a non-JS solution, so why are we going on
>>about this?
>
> because it reflects the complexity of the task, and how the datetime...
You really have a hang-up on "datetime". We have "date", "time",
"datetime", "datetime-locale" and "week". They apply in different
situations.
> ...is not IMO making the life of authors easier, which is one of the
> goals of WF2.
WF2 is supposed to allow for better and easier web apps on COMPLIANT
user agents, while providing for GRACEFUL DEGRADATION on legacy user
agents. WF2 is not designed to make web apps easier to make and more
powerful on LEGACY clients, and I don't even see how it could do that,
since legacy clients don't support it by definition.
>> Fine, then take your chances with Ian. I have better things to do
>>than to search over 1,100 messages for your sake.
>
> That's okay, Ian obviously doesn't... (well if he misses it then I can
> raise it again, no point just re-posting what I've already said after
> all)
Your reasoning then for not posting the cases that are of particular
interest to you escapes me. You don't want to repost them because
they're somewhere in a mountain of emails in this list, but you are
willing to repost them if he misses them?
/me scratches his head.
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 08:38:33 UTC