- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:31:57 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
[Anne van Kesteren:] > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:53:32 +0200, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Yes, IE9's implementation is aligned somewhat with CSSOM but I've been > > told on multiple occasions not to use that document as an official > > reference for anything. > > Given that we have nothing else, that person is wrong imo. Please use it > and give feedback. > I don't think the officialness or lack thereof matters that much in this instance. The fact that there is nothing else does not mean something is ready to be implemented. Especially when the 'nothing else' is stuck in ED as CSSOM was for quite some time and defines behavior like serialization that a) can't be prefixed b) can break backward compatibility c) has generated little or no feedback d) has not been reviewed by the group (the Seattle f2f was the first time the group had a substantial discussion about some of the serialization rules you wrote some time ago afaik). I'm more interested in seeing concrete traction i.e. several implementors showing active interest in converging on an interoperable behavior. When that happens and is backed up with code then I do care about making things 'official' i.e. stable.
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 16:32:25 UTC