- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:33:03 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Pete Cole wrote: > > So, adding/requiring things to make an implementation work does not > affect the spec. For example, requiring that authors link to a style > sheet for IE support is OK and requiring that authors add, say, a class > to an element (<tr class="repeat" repeat="template">) doesn't > break/affect the spec either? Well, the whole point of an IE compatibility shim is that it is merely a work-around for IE's lack of native support. I wouldn't expect a compatibility shim to be fully compliant -- I'm sure it'll always be possible to find simple cases that fail. Dynamic manipulation in particular is not something I'd expect to be particularily successful, when the implementation is at the same level as the manipulation code. For native implementations, requiring that authors link to a special stylesheet or whatever clearly isn't ok. However, if an author wants to be able to use WF2 features on a non-WF2 UA, he can install a compatibility shim, and thus get around the problem of lack of support. But being able to use a shim doesn't affect the spec. Does that answer your question? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 11:33:03 UTC