[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Tue Aug 17 09:07:35 PDT 2004

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> So you wish to specifically exclude the plug-in approach, why do you
> wish to do this?

In the opinion of Mozilla and Opera:

| Any solution that cannot be used with the current high-market-share user 
| agent without the need for binary plug-ins is highly unlikely to be 
| successful.
 -- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html

> In any case, whether plug-ins are relevant or not to the approach, it 
> doesn't invalidate the point I was making.  The argument against OBJECT 
> so far relies on a particular DOM issue in a particular environment 
> against an assumption of a particular style of script support, that 
> should not be sufficient reason to reject it.

It is sufficient.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list