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

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 09:34:50 PDT 2004

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:09:46 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > What I did not understand it to mean, is that the implementation of
> > the features in IE (what does that mean by the way, which versions
> > platforms etc.  Could you clarify the design goals, if they're not
> > what my first paragraph gives) were dependant on a particular
> > methodology.
>    I think it's pretty clear that any WHAT WG markup we come up with
> needs to work in IE using HTC and/or Javascript, NOT A PLUG-IN. 

So you wish to specifically exclude the plug-in approach, why do you
wish to do this?

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.

> By
> contrast, most of those browser have Javascript on and support HTC.

Er, no, only a couple of versions of 1 browser family support HTC's
(and even then they can be disabled seperately from the rest of
javascript.  javascript alone has hugely better support than HTC's

> Therefore, we should not use markup that we can't make work using
> non-binary methods.

Quite right too, completely irrelevant to the point I was making, but
thanks for echoing it.


More information about the whatwg mailing list