Transition from Legacy to Native rendering - (was Re: [whatwg] repetition model)
malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Tue Jun 22 00:23:13 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
>>1) How likely is it that a UA that supports WebForms 2 but not DOM
>I think it's unlikely, but it's possible.
No, it's not. WF2 incorporates by reference DOM2 HTML and DOM3 Core,
among others. You can't implement a WF2 UA without support for them:
"This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the
HTML4, XHTML1.1, DOM2 HTML, DOM3 Core, and DOM3 Events specifications
Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those
specifications to claim compliance to this one."
Actually, there's a slight problem there, but it's not to do with scripting.
>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
Have you also complained in www-dom that all the W3C DOM specs rely on
'de-facto behaviour'? DOMImplementation.hasFeature is defined in W3C's
DOM Level 1 spec from 1998 - it's not like it's some crazy feature we've
come up with by ourselves. I note that XForms does exactly the same
thing - it defines a feature string and level for hasFeature, but
More information about the whatwg