- From: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:58:51 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-openw3c@w3.org
On October 15, 2014 at 3:02:43 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@gmail.com) wrote: > To some extent this view is a bit of a "duh". However, perhaps, some of > the points are relevant vis-à-vis discussions like "After 5" (i.e. > Robin's [After5]), identifying high priority work for the Web (f.ex. > [Prios]) and Application Foundations [AF]. In principle, this is a great idea. I don't have a link, but I recall Eran Hammer proposed exactly this after he rage quit OAuth out of frustration with the IETF. There are some obvious issues, so I feel kinda "duh" listing them. Unlike the Linux foundation's approach, we can't easily share source across browser engines (It's now even become a challenge for Blink and WebKit, as Yoav Weiss could testify as he attempted to backport <picture> from Blink to WebKit). Best we might be able to do is share early JS implementations, but even there it is challenging without some kind of porting layer. I'm sure browser makers still rely on the whole "implementation as standard" for various things under the hood - but to be able to compete on performance, etc. the approach would not be suitable in many cases. I image the IPR situation is not too bad tho - which is a plus. My 2c!
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 15:01:22 UTC