Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it
turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of
the browsers works as specified.
We decided long ago (and subsequently reaffirmed) that instead of
leaving the spec so vague that all existing implementations are
automatically compliant, we would define a shared interoperable behavior
so that implementations can converge. It should not be news to anyone
that implementations are not automatically 100% compliant.
> ...
I'm totally happy not to leave things vague.
But what IMHO happens all over again is that strange choices in the
design are defended with the statement "this is what the vendors do, or
want to do", and when we check it, that turns out to be incorrect.
The totally broken API with respect to setting (or adding) header values
is the best example for that.
If we're specifying something vendors can converge on, why not specify
something *good*? Oh yes, the answer to that is "XHR2". I guess I'm
confused about both the goals and the planned timelines for these specs.
BR, Julian
