- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:40:08 -0500
- To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi,
On Dec 02, 2005, at 09:35, Joseph Kesselman wrote:
> 1) Does anyone have something new to say, rather than restating the
> same
> points differently?
I haven't seen anyone address Maciej's suggestion of only doing this
change for Javascript (perhaps in the language binding). I think it's
a fair compromise that solves a real-world problem in a pragmatic
manner, but I would like to see more discussion.
> 2) Is anyone still undecided? Of those undecided, does anyone think
> more
> discussion will help them decide?
The above should IMHO be discussed further.
> No standard satisfies everyone. If you want to diverge from it,
> feel free,
> but be very explicit that you're doing so. Your customers will
> eventually
> tell you whether you can get away with that or not, by voting with
> their
> wallets.
It's not so simple for browsers. It's very clear to me from the
discussion that has taken place that there is no chance in heck that
a sufficient percentage of the browser install base will be fixed for
web sites that misuse the spec to change (and not complain about the
compliant browsers, which they and users visiting those sites will).
So we have several hundred million copies of broken software out
there. In most cases this would indicate that changing the spec is
easier. However there also are, fewer but still quite a few, non-
broken implementations that could cause trouble if this change were
applied. Thankfully, all those on the former side use Javascript (and
perhaps VBScript), while all those on the other side use Java (and
sometimes C#). It would therefore seem to me that doing this on a
bindings level would work, with bindings not described in the spec
can decide for themselves. It's ugly, but it makes something uglier
go away.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 18:40:31 UTC