[whatwg] Repetition Model

> Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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?
> 

Yep, that'll do thanks. I don't particularly like <tr class="repeat"
repeat="template"> due to it's, ahem, repetition but it does have the merit
of simplicity in implementation and does seem a small thing to ask of
authors.

I presume there is a line beyond which a 'kludge' becomes more than a shim
and a diversion from the spec. From the discussion here it seems that there
are some performance issues in implementation on IE. While such issues can
either be ignored (my document is so small it won't be affected) or
'kludged' away (tr.repeat=...) is there any desirability in considering spec
changes that might solve the performance issues altogether? Or is this all
jumping the gun and one should wait for calls for implementation?

Pete Cole.

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:50:46 UTC