Re: Clarifying group scope and objectives

We would want to cover all things. 

I'd like to touch on the parser bit there - I'm very much of the opinion that we will want a parser that addresses more than just CSS. But that isn't the parser per se - that's the grammars that _a_ parser would use. In other words we really need a parser capable of reading multiple grammars and be extensible that way. And politely I'd say there aren't many "parsers" out there that do this (as I eluded to in my blog article).



On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Mat Scales <mat@wibbly.org.uk> wrote:

> On 4 December 2012 20:33, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> > When thinking up this list I used this as my idea of what the groups
> > objectives are: "To help third-party developers to shape future web
> > standards by creating working implementations of new ideas, used in the
> > wild, without requiring native support. To provide the resources,
> > support and community neccessary for this work. To evangelize this
> > process, and to advocate for successful implementations to be adopted
> > as web standards. To lobby standards groups and browser manufacturers
> > to include APIs and features that make the work possible."
> 
> I think this is a good description.
> 
> However, when I see the prolyfill list, I just want to clarify that we'll probably not work on many actual prolyfill on the list, but more on the tools/guidelines needed to write them. Our role is not to develop a parallel "de facto standardization" group, just to make it possible to create and evangelize them.
> 
> Naturally, that doesn't mean we should not work on some prolyfills to play with the concept, make some fun, and make our own developer work easier (in fact, I think we'll, because we like that) but that should not become our goal, it should stay an aside.
>  
> No, I agree. The list was about nailing down what we consider to be an extension, not things for us to make. The question I guess I was really asking is: what are the types of things that we are going to help people build. The examples were all made up on the spot as illustrations.
> 
> The answer to my question seems to be "All of those things (unless they break existing stuff)". There had been a lot of discussion in the list archive that centered around CSS and building CSS parsers which was a little narrow in scope. Just wanted to check that we would cover other things too.
>