- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:23:13 +0100
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. > > No, it's not. WF2 incorporates by reference DOM2 HTML and DOM3 Core, among others. You can't implement a WF2 UA without support for them: "This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the HTML4, XHTML1.1, DOM2 HTML, DOM3 Core, and DOM3 Events specifications ([HTML4] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsHTML4>, [XHTML1] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsXHTML1>, [DOM2HTML] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM2HTML>, [DOM3CORE] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM3CORE>, [DOM3EVENTS] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM3EVENTS>). Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those specifications to claim compliance to this one." - http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#conformance Actually, there's a slight problem there, but it's not to do with scripting. >>[document.implementation.hasFeature] >> >> >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.... > > Have you also complained in www-dom that all the W3C DOM specs rely on 'de-facto behaviour'? DOMImplementation.hasFeature is defined in W3C's DOM Level 1 spec from 1998 - it's not like it's some crazy feature we've come up with by ourselves. I note that XForms does exactly the same thing - it defines a feature string and level for hasFeature, but nothing more. Regards, Malcolm
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:23:13 UTC