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

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 07:18:06 PDT 2004

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:25:29 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:

>    Considering you don't seem to be suggesting a better way to create
> an emulation layer on IE,

The alternative is simply not to use HTC's but straight script, it has
a number of advantages:

The arguments against are inline script and the hackish support of 1 event.

The arguments for are lower security demands, provides the emulation
layer on considerably more platforms and user agents, and you will not
have any of the long list of problems with HTC's highlighted by Dean
Edwards earlier in the list.

> > This consensus was presumably reached before Dean
> > joined the WHAT-WG (since after that the mailing list is the place for
> > discussion, and there's been none)
>    I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If a consensus was
> reached before Dean joined, it was made in all likelihood without his
> influence, whereas if it was made after he joined, it was made with his
> experience. Either way, I don't see what baring that has on the merit of
> the members' decision.

Dean has an awful lot of experience in scripting for IE and with
HTC's, I do not believe any of the other members do, which is why I
felt it relevant, if the others don't have the experience to judge if
HTC's are a good decision or not, how was it made a requirement?

> what are your reasons for believing they have not considered
> all options?

That they came to an HTC is a requirement solution!  (rather than this
is the sort of tech we could use to provide emulation layers)

> > So it's the expectation of the WHAT-WG that users of  Mozilla, Safari
> > and Opera will get a severely degraded experience unless they upgrade
> > their browsers?
>    By that logic, all new features are a conspiracy to get everyone to
> upgrade.

No, features which degrade to a very much poorer state are, that's
last ditch degradation, (like CSS and HTML, the content's all there,
but you lose all the design) rather than graceful degradation.

> > Well as I said before - it's one way to drive Opera sales.
>    Nevermind that you can get Opera for free if you're not bothered by
> the small banner ad strip at the top.

That's on desktops, unless something has changed radically, it's still
a commercial only product on smartphones (where I use it, well try to,
it struggles a bit on my hardware.)



More information about the whatwg mailing list