Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Mike Champion) writes:
>> There seems to have been a movement early on, especially with the
>> DOM, to chop out "editor-only" functionality. I'm not sure that was
>> such a brilliant move in retrospect.
>Not brilliant, but pragmatic. Who needed that functionality? If they
>existed, they weren't sending people to the DOM WG to do the work!
Maybe they weren't the people at the W3C, and perhaps (given the
browserish nature of the early DOM) they didn't think the DOM was the
right place anyway.
I'm not entirely sure that the functionality belonged in the DOM,
certainly not in the DOM core, but the fact that such things weren't
available in the DOM and in SAX2 served as a handy excuse for future
generations of software developers to ignore them completely and even
claim that this was obviously a good thing. That created an even more
uphill battle for those of us who'd like our text, please.
Pragmatism does have costs, and it's not so easy to be kind to
pragmatists when they throw your interests overboard in the name of
pragmatism. But then I think you're well-aware that anyone who tries to
use W3C process to justify technical decisions to me is facing a serious
dose of skepticism from the outset.
>The editor vendors who were sending people to do the work didn't
>necessarily want every DOM implementation to implement their core
More reason to have doubts about vendor-driven processes...
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org