W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2004

[whatwg] Syntax Highlighting [was: several messages]

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:21:57 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d3104121304216437f0b6@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:59:48 +0000, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> J. King wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:04:56 +0000, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> how do you expect the feature to be tested in implementations then?
> >
> That's a bit like saying "how do you expect to test that a UA treats an
> <em> element as emphasized"? It can't be done - all that you can check
> is that the UA behaves in a manner consistent with the metadata being
> provided 

You're misunderstanding what tested in implementations means in the
context I was using it, unless the feature is proven to work, by
having it existing and doing something in a user agent, it shouldn't
be in the spec, this is why W3c specs now have the 2 implementations
of each feature rule.  I realise the process of this group is so much
more ad-hoc and it's just whatever the editor wants goes in, but
surely at some point it's going to put on a real footing where that
sort of rule needs to exist.

As you note Konqueror could do it, but have the konqueror developers
shown any interest in Hixie's specs?

Jim.
Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 04:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:38 UTC