Transition from Legacy to Native rendering - (was Re: [whatwg] repetition model)
jim.ley at gmail.com
Wed Jun 16 07:53:14 PDT 2004
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:40:47 +0200, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
<hallvors at online.no> wrote:
> [Following up a backchannel correspondence, which I think should go
> to the list too. I hope you don't mind, Jim.]
Of course not.
> On 16 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> 1) How likely is it that a UA that supports WebForms 2 but not DOM
> will emerge?
I think it's unlikely, but it's possible.
> 3) Is it possible or desirable that any UA that implements WebForms 2
> order to make scripts aware that they are compliant with the
> specification? I guess that is a question for Ian..
One of the problems with this is that [window.]document is not in
_any_ specification anywhere, so you'd have WebForms 2.0 introducing a
dependency on de-facto behaviour rather than standard behaviour, I
think that would be difficult to justify. Of course WebForms 2.0
could standardise a window and global script object interface for HTML
More information about the whatwg