[whatwg] LABEL and radio/checkbox onclick

[Matthew Thomas]

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, 
after all.

>> 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.

-- 
Matthew Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/