- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:24:55 +0100
On 10/13/05, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Josh Aas wrote: > > - Section 1.1: "browsers prevalent in 2004" - could be more specific > > given that the number of decently conforming HTML 4 and DOM > > implementations can probably be counted on one hand (Gecko, KHTML, IE, > > Opera). This could better set the bar in terms of what is considered to > > be an acceptable implementation. > > For political reasons it has been considered wiser not to actually mention > specific UAs. (In reality, user agents like Lynx and others were also > taken into account, actually.) Very wise, especially as the IceBrowser component was certainly as capable as the above listed, and there's at least one other mobile browser that has a reasonable DOM, which pushes us over the one hand. Listing things is always dangerous as if you miss one, it looks like it was deliberate - definately a bad idea for a vendor sponsored spec. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 01:24:55 UTC