[whatwg] Repetition Model
jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Mar 24 10:13:07 PST 2005
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:10:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> You are of course entitled to your opinion, but note that one of the
> fundamental principles that WHATWG is built on is that we can't rely on
> the user installing plugins and the like. Getting them to update their
> user stylesheet is even harder than getting them to install a plugin.
> IMHO, having the author add in a line to a prewritten script is fine.
I obviously described the situation very badly, we must _also_ support
WF2 provided via Internet explorer plugins etc.
Having the author add in a line is not fine, I can't see the point in
having WF2 and a load of extra stuff to make it more implementable,
why not just have the extra stuff? In any case extra author added
stuff also makes the "is this a wf2 capable browser" even harder to
> But like I said, you are naturally entitled to disagree. Thankfully, this
> doesn't affect the spec -- so long as it is implementable, it doesn't
> matter if the implementation is installed by the user or the author.
It does if they both end up doing it and they collide because there's
no way for the page author to identify a WF2 browser (which there
isn't currently, and I've brought it up many times, so I'm surprised
it's not a still open issue)
More information about the whatwg