[whatwg] comments on Web Forms 2.0
jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 01:24:55 PDT 2005
On 10/13/05, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Josh Aas wrote:
> > - Section 1.1: "browsers prevalent in 2004" - could be more specific
> > given that the number of decently conforming HTML 4 and DOM
> > implementations can probably be counted on one hand (Gecko, KHTML, IE,
> > Opera). This could better set the bar in terms of what is considered to
> > be an acceptable implementation.
> For political reasons it has been considered wiser not to actually mention
> specific UAs. (In reality, user agents like Lynx and others were also
> taken into account, actually.)
Very wise, especially as the IceBrowser component was certainly as
capable as the above listed, and there's at least one other mobile
browser that has a reasonable DOM, which pushes us over the one hand.
Listing things is always dangerous as if you miss one, it looks like
it was deliberate - definately a bad idea for a vendor sponsored spec.
More information about the whatwg