Re: Spec feedback

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> - 2.1. expdate. Is there a less application-specific name for this type
> that could be used?

Maybe, do you have a suggestion?


> - Do the new types mean that extensions to RFC3106 might be useful? Is
> it the job of your spec to specify them?

Maybe, and not in this version, respectively.


> - "The entire model can be emulated purely using JavaScript and the DOM.
> With such a library, this model could be used and down-level clients
> could be supported before user agents implemented it ubiquitously.
> Creating such a library is left as an exercise to the reader."
>
> This begs the question: why not write and publish the library instead of
> writing a spec?

Native implementations are more solid, and don't require scripting.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 19:27:57 UTC