Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send()
algorithm since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed.
This is matches what implementations do.
I don't think we need to match step-by-step what implementations do.
It's already been concluded that we can't create an XHR spec that
follow exactly what the current major browsers do, since they are in
conflict.
I've said this many times before (in the context of other specs), but
it bears repeating: I think it's worth sacrificing a little
compatibility if that makes for a better spec. Every time we add
extra complexity for the sake of being compatible with a browser we
should ask ourselves, what is the cost (spec complexity) versus value
(few more sites would work out-of-the-box). The more obscure the
edgecases the smaller the value is and the higher the cost is.
This does mean breaking with IE sometimes, and of course with
Firefox/Opera/Safari too.
FWIW, not even Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to just blindly
follow IE. See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0654.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0736.html
search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are willing
to fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do.
No, they are not willing to fix their engine. They just want other
browsers to follow the "clean and logical" behavior in the spec while IE
preserves the old behavior for existing content forever. At least that's
my understanding of their messages about versioning.
Yes, my impression was that they were going to keep old behavior for old
content, but that they'd be willing to change the behavior for content
that opt-in.
/ Jonas
