On mån, 2008-07-07 at 19:31 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > 0) The specifications makes sense and unambious to implement > > Assuming you meant "unambiguous", I agree. I did. Always have a hard time spelling that word for some reason... > So you're asking people to shoot themselves in the foot for the common good. > While some may be willing to, in general that's a tough sell if the shooting is > significant enough. No I am not. > Put another way, I can't think of a browser that would be willing to, say, > sacrifice 5% of market share on this issue. I suspect sacrificing a single user > is acceptable. The line is somewhere in between. Yes. The rule is that you sacrifice some share to gain another part and improve long term stability and reliability. > > - Simplicity. > > Which is nice if possible, of course. Are we talking simplicity of > specification, of implementation, or of deployment? In this discussion at least specification and implementation. Usually goes hand in hand. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 23:56:55 UTC