On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12/31/12 4:26 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> Well, if we're talking about JS-implemented WebAPIs, then that stuff >> should >> be running as chrome, potentially in the content process (unless I'm >> mistaken - I'm still a bit behind on all the b2g architecture). If we're >> talking about web apps, then they're supposed to be regular old web >> content, and we shouldn't do anything special for them in Gecko. Doing so >> undermines our position that these apps are open and portable. >> > > We're talking about the b2g UI. And I'm not talking theoretically; it's > using instanceof on HTML elements right now. So either we change that > code, or we make those instanceof checks work or something. Gaia? I think we should consider any reliance on this behavior a bug for now, otherwise the project is standards-based in name only. Gecko is currently the only engine implementing all the WebAPIs, but we're hoping that will change. And when it does, it would suck if the apps still didn't work because they were actually relying on all sorts of non-standard Gecko junk. I'd think the arguments should be based on improving the HTML5 developer > experience > Yes, of course. As I said, this has come up multiple times in the past, > precisely on those grounds. It also sounds from your initial post that other vendors weren't very receptive to the idea. If so, that's a shame. Maybe we could try again? Nevertheless, if they won't listen, I think we should remove our hacks and align with the spec (fixing any gaia breakage), rather than entrenching our nonstandard behavior. This can't be an unreasonable requirement to place on Gaia, since it's also the state of affairs on the open web. bholley _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
