[whatwg] Repetition Model
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Mar 24 11:33:03 PST 2005
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Pete Cole wrote:
> So, adding/requiring things to make an implementation work does not
> affect the spec. For example, requiring that authors link to a style
> sheet for IE support is OK and requiring that authors add, say, a class
> to an element (<tr class="repeat" repeat="template">) doesn't
> break/affect the spec either?
Well, the whole point of an IE compatibility shim is that it is merely a
work-around for IE's lack of native support. I wouldn't expect a
compatibility shim to be fully compliant -- I'm sure it'll always be
possible to find simple cases that fail. Dynamic manipulation in
particular is not something I'd expect to be particularily successful,
when the implementation is at the same level as the manipulation code.
For native implementations, requiring that authors link to a special
stylesheet or whatever clearly isn't ok. However, if an author wants to be
able to use WF2 features on a non-WF2 UA, he can install a compatibility
shim, and thus get around the problem of lack of support.
But being able to use a shim doesn't affect the spec.
Does that answer your question?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg