Transition from Legacy to Native rendering - (was Re: [whatwg] repetition model)

Malcolm Rowe malcolm-what at
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
>>will emerge?
>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 
([HTML4] <>, 
[XHTML1] <>, 
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 
nothing more.


More information about the whatwg mailing list