- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:39:12 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, dev-tech-xbl@lists.mozilla.org
On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:27 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I fully agree with that, the point is not to water down the
interoperability requirements. I simply want to make sure that JS-
based implementations are counted as "real" as there often is a
misperception that they are somehow just hacks.
> 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.
As would I, on both counts. But my point isn't limited to XBL, though
it sure would be nice to be able to deploy with it right now.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 14:39:48 UTC