Re: Seeking implementation status of XBL2

Robin Berjon wrote:
> I don't know if there is precedent in counting JS-based implementations 
> as valid implementation to get a spec out the door (maybe the Forms WG 
> did it?) but I see no reason not to. In fact, I could make the argument 
> that they should count *more* as they allow technology to be deployed 
> faster than the browser churn.

Assuming the JS-based implementations actually implement the spec as 
written, yes.  But since the point of the implementation requirement is 
to make sure that the spec is in fact implementable, implementations 
that don't _quite_ implement it shouldn't count towards the "two 
interoperable implementations" criterion.

In particular, I would be somewhat surprised if the JS-based 
implementations actually implement the tree-mangling parts of XBL 
correctly.  I'd welcome being proved wrong, of course.


Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 14:28:45 UTC