- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:27:43 +0100
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:06:53 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote:
> Jim Ley writes:
> (Have you raised a bug in bugzilla about the JS differences, or are they
> deliberate differences? If not, could you do so, or let me know what they
> are, and I'll do it on your behalf.)
I'm not actually confident it is non-conformant (ECMAScript has lots
of get outs allowing all sorts of extensions.) but it's on the
interpretation of \b - Mozilla is more generous than the standard on
what concerns a character, it's better IMO, and I wouldn't bother
filing a bug as I'm sure it'll resolve as wont fix.
>> Great, so this is a proposal for the spec then - Hixie can you include?
>> WF2 UA's must provide the ability for Users to submit forms without
>> client-side validation.
>
> Well, I'm not sure if I'd support it as a MUST/SHOULD recommendation - I
> just rewrote what you'd put to indicate that a UA could ('MAY') provide such
> a dialog. But it's worth considering.
I believe it's at least SHOULD, as we noted there's high risk of bad
implementations, or buggy implementations, and this would at least let
people carry on and achieve their end. Bugs in UA's shouldn't stop
pages working.
> but it's a *lot* easier to fix a broken UA than it is to
> update scripts on all broken sites.
Right, but I don't care about other sites (in fact it may be to my
advantage that they're broken) I do care about my scripts, and it's
much easier to fix those than it is to fix a broken UA, and get it
deployed. What's Opera's update process on Symbian, how is easy it to
patch that, and motivated does the user need to be? - fixing browsers
may be easy, distributing them is not.
Cheers,
Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 03:27:43 UTC