- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:14:21 -0400
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:51:36 -0400, Matthew Raymond
> <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not seeing your point. If a webmaster can't rely on a fully
>>HTML-compliant user agent to support something, why should they use it
>>in the place of another HTML-based solution that always works in a fully
>>HTML-compliant UA?
>
> Presumably for the same reason they'd use any of the WHAT-WG
> specifications, despite support being only available in a tiny
> minority of user agents (when first available of course.
Apples and oranges. The features in WF2 are generally not defined as
optional within the specification. I was describing a situation where a
browser that complies with Standard X doesn't necessarily have a
feature. You're describing a situation where the browser doesn't support
Standard X at all.
The difference is that anyone using mandatory features in the
Standard X specification can at the very least expect a compliant
browser to work with their markup. The <link> relationships are not
mandatory, so they do not even rise to that level.
You can argue that standards may not be adopted, but one cannot
expect features written as optional in a specification will be
implemented in software, regardless of compliance.
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 10:14:21 UTC