On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:28:07 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:18:34 +0100, Steven Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would prefer "Implementations should ensure that they do not crash or
behave erratically" if you see my point.
But what I don't understand is why the spec thinks that a hostile
NSResolver should be called out, or even what such a thing is.
To ensure that naïve implementors don't overlook the potential issue
here. An implementation of NSResolver can be provided by the script
author as the specification explains and the script author can do all
kinds of weird things that don't match a conforming implementation of
NSResolver (such as mutating the DOM tree).
Then I think that wording like that would make the issue clearer (though I
think stupidity rather than hostility would be a more likely risk).
Thanks.
Steven
