Re: DOM4 Core

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> 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.

So you got an official response from Microsoft saying that they were
not going to implement Theora? What about Vorbis which they are
apparently shipping in other products?

> 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.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. For authors
neither .tags() nor theora can be reliably used on the web, and the
way things are looking right now neither of them will be. Weather
there is some separate document that defines how .tags() works when
it's available doesn't seem to make much of a difference? You end up
with the absurd situation where if microsoft improved their
documentation for .tags() to be precise enough to be considered a
spec, all of a sudden it could be dropped from the HTML5 spec and thus
less likely for developers to be reliably available.

/ Jonas

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 00:48:57 UTC