Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm
since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed.
This is matches what implementations do.
I don't think we need to match step-by-step what implementations do.
It's already been concluded that we can't create an XHR spec that follow
exactly what the current major browsers do, since they are in conflict.
I've said this many times before (in the context of other specs), but it
bears repeating: I think it's worth sacrificing a little compatibility
if that makes for a better spec. Every time we add extra complexity for
the sake of being compatible with a browser we should ask ourselves,
what is the cost (spec complexity) versus value (few more sites would
work out-of-the-box). The more obscure the edgecases the smaller the
value is and the higher the cost is.
This does mean breaking with IE sometimes, and of course with
Firefox/Opera/Safari too.
FWIW, not even Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to just blindly follow
IE. See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0654.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0736.html
search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are willing to
fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do.
/ Jonas
