- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:30:03 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On 22/01/13 17:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: >> What definition of "widely used" would you like me to use? > > The one that was used for the DOM specification is whether or not > applications depend on the feature. So whether it can be removed from > user agents without affecting applications running on those user > agents. > > Note that if there are compelling use cases for these features, per > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0087.html > justification seems lacking, we can easily introduce them. We have > removed everything from the DOM applications did not depend upon and > started from there. Honestly, removing xmlStandalone, xmlVersion and xmlEncoding is a weird decision since all rendering engines keep internal non- scriptable versions of them to be able to serialize all things XML. http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/public/nsIDocument.h#1016 http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/114059 And if you need a use case, as I said earlier, an editor BlueGriffon need access to the xml declaration to handle polyglot correctly. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:30:33 UTC