- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:14:20 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, www-dom@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:06:56 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >> >> The reality is that there are some poorly-designed features that many >> browsers will have to support for legacy content, but where there are >> better-specified and more widely supported alternatives, I think it's >> counterproductive to also specify the non-standard feature. For example, >> keyCode and charCode. > > I don't agree with this sentiment. If a feature (however pointless) is > needed to get traction as a new web browser it should be defined so that the > new browser does not have to reverse engineer other browsers. The more > legacy features (that need to be implemented) we leave undocumented the > bigger the barrier to entry. Which ultimately is just bad for the ecosystem. Indeed. But that's not the case here. So far no one has shown that this feature is needed for web compat. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 07:21:49 UTC