[Bug 25618] Extensibility: Offer spec-blessed ways to extend the algorithms and curves, rather than monkey-patching the spec

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618

--- Comment #46 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
> Why would it make sense to have S1 reference S2? 

We've covered that already in this discussion.  Please just read what was
already said instead of us repeating the same thing over and over?

> Why would sites assume S2 is implemented if it's clearly an extension?

Because the people who create sites don't read specs.  They read tutorials and
copy/paste demos.

So when browser X implements S1+S2 and puts out a blog post saying "we
implement S1!" with a demo that uses S1+S2, after that everyone assumes that
"S1" includes the functionality that's actually in S2.

We've seen this play out over and over.  The fact that you seem unaware of it
while being on W3C staff is somewhat disturbing to me.

> we are *not* saying they are required.

I meant "required" in the sense of "you are not web-compatible unless you
implement it", not in a normative spec requirement sense.

I mean, you could go and say that support for document.write is optional, but
it's still required to be implemented by a web browser that wants to actually,
say, browse the web.

> Given there is a vastly decreasing amount of browsers

This fact is itself a problem.

To address this problem, and various other issues, new browser engines (Servo,
but also others) are in fact being created.  Those are one of the primary
customers of W3C specifications: they need the specs to avoid having to
reverse-engineer Trident/Blink/WebKit/Firefox.

You may not care about whether creation of new browser engines is feasible, but
I do.  Maybe you do too; in that case I don't understand this reluctance all
along to make it more feasible.

> and adding algorithms to the base spec

I'm not requesting that algorithms be added to the base spec, and I don't see
why you thought I was.  I'm glad we're clear on the fact that I'm not.  ;)

It sounds like you and I at least are in agreement: the base spec should
reference an up-to-date list of extension specs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 15:14:28 UTC