- From: Matthew Raymond <spacedog@planetquake.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:59:03 -0400
R.J. Keller wrote:
> I don't agree with this idea. I know where you're coming from, but this
> looks like more of a compilation of data than an actual specification.
Well, the whole point would be to have a spec that mirrors the W3C
recommendations, et cetera. For example, say you're working on some CSS
and you want to use a properties from a W3C spec, but you don't know if
it's supported. You could just go to the CSS section of Web-IE6, and it
would specify whether the properties is implemented in IE and whether it
behaves according to the W3C specification.
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I think that it'd be better to have a
> specification that would cover all of IE's proprietary.add-ons
> (document.all, for example) and not list specifically which
> specifications are implemented in IE and which are not (Microsoft
> probably has something about this already).
I would be surprised if Microsoft had a compiled list of how their
browser is NOT compliant. If Microsoft has this information at all, it's
scattered about throughout MSDN.
> However, it's probably not
> the best thing to do considering most proprietary IE add-ons can usually
> be implemented using a W3C or WHAT WG recommended specification.
Even if the proprietary add-ons did something that couldn't be done
in W3C/WHAT WG specs, would you honestly want to advertise extensions
that you have no intention of putting into a WHAT WG spec?
I can understand, though, if there isn't a lot of support for my
idea. It's a lot of work with very little glory. Meanwhile, I'm working
hard on my next specification suggestion...
Received on Saturday, 5 June 2004 19:59:03 UTC