[whatwg] repetition model

[Ian Hickson]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> Seen as (by how I read the process) the spec cannot reach a mature
> stable level until there are native implementations, why should we
> bother with this restriction?  Why not do it properly rather than have a
> half assed load of methods duplicating nothing that isn't already done
> in script - no-one will be able to use the specification in a commercial
> environment until the spec is mature, why not leave the proof of concept
> scripting to be done on a good useful specification?

This is exactly correct, yes.

Graceful degradation is important; if you view WF2 content in an old
non-WF2 browser, then it should still look vaguely ok -- you wouldn't
expect all the script to work in such a context, and the new WF2 features
would have no effect, but the basic content should be visible and static
features (such as non-repeated forms) should still work if submitted.

But the idea with the new features is that they be implemented natively in
browsers other than IE6 (which is an exception because of (a) its large
market share, (b) the fact that it can pretty easily be extended with HTCs
and the like, and (c) the fact that its development team has stated their
lack of interest in improving their rendering engine, which is what
started the whole WHATWG thing in the first place).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'