- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:24:03 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, dev-tech-xbl@lists.mozilla.org
We're interested in implementing XBL2 in WebKit as well, though I can't give a specific timetable. On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > 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. Sure, JS-based implementations should count as "real" if they in fact fully implement the spec. However, native browser-hosted implementations may well run into issues that may not affect a JS- based implementation, and our endgame goal here is to have interoperable browser-native implementations. So overall, I think it would be unwise to advance the spec to PR on the strength of JS-based implementations alone. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 18:24:51 UTC