Re: [whatwg] register*Handler and Web Intents

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> I agree with Henri that it is
> extremely worrying to allow aesthetic concerns to trump backward
> compatibility here.

Letting aesthetic concerns trump backward compat is indeed troubling.
It's also troubling that this even needs to be debated, considering
that we're supposed to have a common understanding of the design
principles and the design principles pretty clearly uphold backward
compatibility over aesthetics.

> I would also advise strongly against using position in DOM to detect intents
> support; if you insist on adding a new void element I will strongly
> recommend that we add it to the parser asap to try and mitigate the above
> breakage, irrespective of whether our plans for the rest of the intent
> mechanism.

I think the compat story for new void elements is so bad that we
shouldn't add new void elements. (<source> gets away with being a void
element, because the damage is limited by the </video> or </audio> end
tag that comes soon enough after <source>.) I think we also shouldn't
add new elements that don't imply <body> when appearing in "in head".

It's great that browsers have converged on the parsing algorithm.
Let's not break what we've achieved to cater to aesthetics.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 15:12:30 UTC