W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:25:29 -0400
Message-ID: <40FBBDB9.8090909@earthlink.net>
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:54:02 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>>It is the concensus of the members.
> 
> How was this consensus reached?

    I presume the members talked to each other...

 > Could you at least perhaps mention
> some of the other approaches considered for IE support and why they
> were rejected?

    Considering you don't seem to be suggesting a better way to create 
an emulation layer on IE, I don't see what purpose this would serve 
other than to give you an opportunity to take apart and insult their 
reasoning. If you think you have a better idea, perhaps you should state 
it outright so that we can debate it in detail rather than letting you 
play divide and conquer by putting all remotely possible ideas on the 
table at once.

 > This consensus was presumably reached before Dean
> joined the WHAT-WG (since after that the mailing list is the place for
> discussion, and there's been none)

    I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If a consensus was 
reached before Dean joined, it was made in all likelihood without his 
influence, whereas if it was made after he joined, it was made with his 
experience. Either way, I don't see what baring that has on the merit of 
the members' decision.

 > So I'm a bit concerned that not
> all the options for supporting it in IE was considered.

    A concern that seems to be based entirely on the fact that you don't 
have direct access to records of their conversations. Beyond irrational 
distrust, what are your reasons for believing they have not considered 
all options?

> As I've said before, I do not feel HTC's are an appropriate mechanism
> for providing this sort of support in a release environment.

    What would be a better method of supporting emulation?

>>>How are these oninvalid events dealt with in legacy FireFox, Opera,
>>>Safari, Konqueror etc. ?
>>
>>By not doing them at all. Legacy UAs are expected to not support WF2, and
>>thus WF2 degrades into current "stupid" HTML in those UAs. (This is also a
>>requirement. It has to degrade gracefully.) 
> 
> So it's the expectation of the WHAT-WG that users of  Mozilla, Safari
> and Opera will get a severely degraded experience unless they upgrade
> their browsers?

    By that logic, all new features are a conspiracy to get everyone to 
upgrade.

 > Well as I said before - it's one way to drive Opera sales.

    Nevermind that you can get Opera for free if you're not bothered by 
the small banner ad strip at the top. Interesting, the tooltip shows the 
full URL for the site you'll be taken to when you click on the banner. A 
sure sign of evil!
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 05:25:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC