- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:03:28 -0500
James Graham wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> When using the inheritance feature of <idate>, incompatibility
>>isn't the default either, and the only situation in which you can't
>>use inheritance is when the first child control doesn't submit a
>>complete date. You're arguing a "Rogue Webmaster" scenario.
>
> To be clear, my adaptation of this model did not include any such
> inheritance (for implementation simplicity). Having said that I don't
> think that requiring authors to explicitly provide fallback content is
> such a bad thing (at least, not worse than the limited fallback options
> offered by input). But more on that later.
I could be convinced to drop inheritance if it's shown that it
creates significant implementation problems, but unless someone can
clearly communicate the problems involved, I still believe any potential
feature removal should occur during the implementation phase of the spec.
On a slightly unrelated note, I just realized a short time ago that
the Microsoft sabotage scenario could happen just as easily if <idate>,
or any part of it, were left out of the spec as it would be if it were
included as-is. All Microsoft would have to do is implement flawed
non-inheritance support (to mess up my version of <idate>), or implement
my version in its entirety for either Ian's position or yours. So I
don't think manipulating the markup is going to keep Microsoft from
screwing us if it so desires...
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 10:03:28 UTC