[whatwg] LABEL and radio/checkbox onclick
mpt at myrealbox.com
Thu Aug 26 08:11:10 PDT 2004
On 27 Aug, 2004, at 1:17 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> It wouldn't make life any easier for authors. They would still have to
>> handle the no-submit case, for the same reasons they have to handle
>> invalid dates and all the rest -- to cater for non-WF2 clients (and
>> for defective/malicious submittors).
>> Nor would it make life any easier for UA implementors. It would just
>> give them fewer choices about how to design their code.
> Fewer choices makes things easier for implementors.
Then why not say "You must use Gecko"? It's available under the LGPL,
>> So why make it a requirement?
> Undefined behaviour is bad. It makes it hard to get interoperability.
> On matters like this, IMHO interoperability is very important.
Narrowing a specification to *forbid* the hitherto-correct behavior
followed by the 95%-dominant UA may achieve a variety of good and
useful things, but interoperability is manifestly not one of them. I
would greatly appreciate receiving a genuine answer.
More information about the whatwg