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

[Malcolm Rowe]

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] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsHTML4>, 
[XHTML1] <http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsXHTML1>, 
[DOM2HTML] 
<http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM2HTML>, 
[DOM3CORE] 
<http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM3CORE>, 
[DOM3EVENTS] 
<http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#refsDOM3EVENTS>). 
Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those 
specifications to claim compliance to this one."
 - http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#conformance

Actually, there's a slight problem there, but it's not to do with scripting.

>>[document.implementation.hasFeature]
>>    
>>
>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
>UA's....
>  
>
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.

Regards,
Malcolm