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

[whatwg] Re: Suggestion: Web-IE6 Specification

From: R.J. Keller <rlk@mozdev.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:09:14 -0500
Message-ID: <40C28ADA.2010304@mozdev.org>
Matthew Raymond wrote:

>    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.
>

I understand your point, but this sounds like a document keeping track 
of bugs in IE, which I feel is inappropriate for a web design 
specification. This specification would not propose any new features, 
but only give a list of ones that already exist.

>
>    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.
>

No, I meant a list of extra "features" for web-designers (like 
document.all, etc.). A list of how they're not compliant is probably not 
listed but may be documented elsewhere (I remember reading such a 
document awhile back).


> > 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?
>

My point is that it would be far more useful to do something like a 
proprietary add-ons specification considering that it would propose new 
features. I'm not saying that the WHAT WG should turn these specs into 
advertisements (especially not for MS extensions, which are generally 
unhelpful). It seems like a waste of time and effort to display 
specifications that don't propose any kind of evolution in web design. 
I'm not saying that this kind of documentation would be bad, it would 
actually be very useful (knowing myself from being a web designer), but 
I don't think a specification is the place to have this.

>    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...


I'm not saying it's a bad set of documentation, I just think it's 
inappropriate in a specification. This sounds like the kind of 
documentation that would go on a website about webdesign. I would 
personally would love this kind of documentation! I've always had 
problems finding out where the bugs exist in IE and trying to find out 
what line of code specifically annoys IE.

Sincerely,

-- 
R.J. Keller
mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner

http://mozilla.org/projects/help-viewer
http://macrotracker.mozdev.org
Received on Saturday, 5 June 2004 20:09:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:33 UTC