On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Adam Barth <w...@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan > <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org > > > > wrote: > >> Wouldn't you consider the interoperability benefits to the Web > platform? > > > > Not to mention the benefit of simplifying the platform a tiny bit by > > removing a feature which mostly duplicates another much more well-known > > feature. > > I'm all for interoperability, but who's going to twist Microsoft's arm > to remove the feature from IE? > I don't know, but even if they keep it, we'll be OK. As far as simplifying the platform, innerText is but one grain of sand > on the beach. > Perhaps, but it's a popular beach. Every grain matters. I think we agree innerText is redundant. The only reason to spec it would be for Web compatibility. But if we have no evidence it is needed for compatibility, we shouldn't spec it. (And personally, I think browsers should refrain from exposing Web-facing features that are neither in standards nor considered suitable for standarization, especially without a prefix.) >From my point of view, the status quo of innerText being supported in IE and Webkit but unspecified and ignored by authors in practice is actually better than adding innerText to the spec. If it's added to the spec, more authors will discover it and start using it. Maybe someone could do a search to find out how much innerText is used on the Web? Rob -- "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
