- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:53:14 +0100
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:40:47 +0200, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvors at online.no> wrote: > > [Following up a backchannel correspondence, which I think should go > to the list too. I hope you don't mind, Jim.] Of course not. > On 16 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > 1) How likely is it that a UA that supports WebForms 2 but not DOM > will emerge? I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. > 3) Is it possible or desirable that any UA that implements WebForms 2 > and JavaScript MUST support document.implementation.hasFeature in > order to make scripts aware that they are compliant with the > specification? I guess that is a question for Ian.. One of the problems with this is that [window.]document is not in _any_ specification anywhere, so you'd have WebForms 2.0 introducing a dependency on de-facto behaviour rather than standard behaviour, I think that would be difficult to justify. Of course WebForms 2.0 could standardise a window and global script object interface for HTML UA's.... Cheers, Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:53:14 UTC