- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:27:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > I just don't want to end up in a situation where a feature is > > implemented almost everywhere but not in the spec. > > So does this mean that you'll add back Theora if it's implemented in > Opera, Mozilla and Chrome? ;) > > My point is that you're inconsistent here. Previously a feature hasn't > been put in the spec if some vendor says that they won't implement it. > In this case you seem to be doing the opposite, and not remove it from > the spec unless all major vendors agree to remove it. > > I sent a formal request to have .tags removed from HTMLCollection to the > whatwg list. I think there's a difference between 4 out of 5 and 3 out of 5; and I think there's a difference between one spec requiring that another spec be implemented, and one spec including or not including a feature. If browsers support something, then we want them to do it in an interoperable way, which means that there needs to be a spec for that feature. There _is_ a spec for Theora, the question is just whether it should be implemented or not. With tags(), there is no other spec. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 23:15:33 UTC