[whatwg] Suggestion: Web-IE6 Specification
rlk at mozdev.org
Sat Jun 5 19:00:12 PDT 2004
Space Dog wrote:
> Web Forms 2.0 and other standards currently being developed by WHAT
> WG are based on the idea of backwards compatibility with Internet
> Explorer 6.0. (If I'm in error about this, please let me know.)
> Therefore, in order to create specifications to this end, we need to
> know exactly what IE does and does not support. However, I don't
> believe there is a single, official page on the Internet that contains
> all necessary information on just what standards Internet Explorer
> For this reason, I propose the a specification called "Web
> Standards in Internet Explorer 6.0", or Web-IE6 for short. This
> specification would be defined in the following manner:
> 1) The spec would contain information on what portions of WHAT WG
> specs and W3C recommendations are supported in IE.
> 2) This would not include anything from W3C below a recommendation,
> but when a specification becomes a recommendation, the Web-IE6 spec
> would be updated accordingly.
> 3) The spec would define how IE 6.0 deviates from specifications for
> the elements/attributes/events/etc. it does support.
> 3) This would not include proprietary Microsoft extensions to W3C
> recommendations, except where those extensions exist in WHAT WG
> 4) This would not include work arounds that give IE functionality
> similar to what is specified in W3C recommendations and WHAT WG
> In a nutshell, Web-IE6 would define a subset of W3C and WHAT WG
> standards that are supported in Internet Explorer 6.0. This would have
> the following benefits:
> * Webmasters could design use this specification to create
> standards-compliant web pages and web applications that display and
> operate properly or reasonably in Internet Explorer.
> * Specification writer would benefit from having a clearer picture of
> how IE would behave when displaying web pages that utilize their specs.
> * Browser developers would be able to use the specification to ensure
> standards compliance that would meet or exceed that of IE.
> End of line.
I don't agree with this idea. I know where you're coming from, but this
looks like more of a compilation of data than an actual specification.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I think that it'd be better to have a
specification that would cover all of IE's proprietary.add-ons
(document.all, for example) and not list specifically which
specifications are implemented in IE and which are not (Microsoft
probably has something about this already). However, it's probably not
the best thing to do considering most proprietary IE add-ons can usually
be implemented using a W3C or WHAT WG recommended specification.
mozilla.org Help Systems Module Owner
More information about the whatwg