- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:04:13 +0100
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > In short, I agree that if the implementation cost was high here that we > could compromise on this design and go with something less clean or with > less graceful fallback, because it is true that many authors will not use > this fallback feature. However, given that the cost is low, I don't see > why we would remove the fallback feature. It's relatively simple, > inobtrusive, and works. The fact that a feature is easy to implement should carry very little value. We shouldn't add features unless they are going to be used. I'm personally very unconvinced that this feature would be used enough to warrant adding it to the spec and implementing it in browsers. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 15:04:13 UTC