RE: Make Microsoft follow the spec.

Scott E. Lee [] wrote:
>Chris Wilson wrote:
>But implementing non-standard object models that allow for sloppy
>methods of standards-compliant objects is a way of undermining the DOM.
>That is what gets my cheese.

Again, I would point out that document.all PREDATED the DOM.  In fact, our
initial release of document.all, in the first beta of IE4 back in, oh, say,
early summer 1997, was one of the key factors in forming the DOM Working
Group effort in the W3C.  Calling document.all a sloppy cut-around method
would only make any form of sense if there had been a standards-compliant
way of doing that even on the horizon at the time.

>> Microsoft still participates in the DOM Working Group (among other
>> and tries to innovate in those bodies of work in what we feel are the
>> directions for our customers.
>Why "innovate" in the direction you feel is right for the customer and not
>the direction that is right for the internet?  

Because we LIKE having happy customers?  Because we're in this to make a

>While the direction of the internet should be driven by the people that use
>some consideration should be given to the people that actually write the 
>documents that provide the information that the users are accessing.  

When I say "customers" in this context, I'm not talking about Joe Schmoe
Web-surfer.  I'm talking about the major companies that build software
solutions in DHTML.

[rest of rant deleted, because it's just wacked.  If you think Microsoft is
so evil, why do you waste your time talking to me?]

>> If you think we are going to remove support of such widely-used object
>> from our implementation, then you are deluding yourself.  Microsoft
>> long and hard in the DOM WG that the usefulness of document.all should
>> be ignored; regardless, it was not incorporated into the standard. Mind
>> document.getElementById() does nearly the same thing - and we implemented
>> that, along with a lot of other duplicate object model functionality, to
>> provide standards support rather than just proprietary versions of the
>> thing (despite having implemented our own functionality long before).
>And huzzah for IE.  But, by implementing document.all (even with the
>document.getElementById()) IE allows hack document writers to exclude
people not
>using IE as their UA.  Is that good for your customer base?  Probably.  Is
>showing that MS is an inclusive company?  Hardly.

Whatever.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  If you don't think anyone
else should use it, go start a marketing campaign.  I personally don't care
- we don't go around evangelizing document.all as a "better solution" than

Document.all was an innovation when we first built it - long before
getElementById().  It isn't anymore - that's the way innovation works.  We
wouldn't have implemented document.all if getElementById() had existed at
the time.  We won't remove it now to satisfy some requirement that we punish
our customers for having built solutions with the support available at the
time.  End of story.

>> Or, to look at it another way, I don't think it's Microsoft's job to
>> the world.
>Revel in the power but accept none of the responsibility, is that it?
>from on high and damn the rest of us.  I see.

Hmm.  No, I think Microsoft accepts full responsibility for its own actions
- however, Web designers have to take responsibility for their own actions.
We provide them the support to build standards-compliant sites - if they
choose to use compatibility features in our products instead, well, then the
Web Standards Project needs to start a Web design campaign.

-Chris Wilson
 Speaking for myself, and done speaking on this issue.  I have work to do.

Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 13:40:10 UTC