- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:22:42 -0400
On 9/10/11 11:09 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > I read Daniel as saying that Firefox now implements the correct behavior Yep. > but the definition of "correct behavior" should be changed to allow some > addtional convenience for no reason other than convenience. He explicitly mentioned that we're getting bug reports of "this works in Chrome but not in Firefox" variety, no? Possibly further down the thread, not in the initial post. > So he would make the same suggestion even if everybody implemented the correct beha- > vior. That's possible. If we had UA compat on the correct behavior now, I would be rather opposed to changing anything. > If the argument is "but this breaks too many sites" or "we think > that some vendor or other will not implement the correct behavior due to > convenience issues" or whatever other reason The "argument" is that other vendors have not implemented correct behavior even though they've known for years that theirs is incorrect. Gecko was just as guilty as anyone else in this matter until recently, because getting to correct behavior involved breaking compatibility promises we'd made. So I think the proposal is being offered as a possible middle ground that people who don't want to converge on the correct behavior might be willing to converge on. If people are willing to converge on the correct behavior, I think that would be pretty good too. Given Adam's response earlier in this thread, I'm not holding my hopes up. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 20:22:42 UTC