- From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:03:16 -0400
Hi Brad, > I would argue that this is scope creep for this group. While it might be > admirable to have closed source web applications (I don't believe so), > this > working group seems to be taking existing HTML specifications, like CSS, > and extending or strengthening them to support richer apps. These > existing > apps are already plain, human-readable files; making them opposite would > be > a gargantuan effort. > Not necessarily for certain vendor but surely for people working for peanuts in the Mozilla project. In this last case, the question is now what is the specification easier to implement. Let's say in Mozilla for instance (since this latter is open source). I am still studying XBL and cannot say if it's easy to implement. I can surely say that behaviors are easy to implement and match very well the prototype/instance based model of ECMAScript. Let's forget the open vs closed source positions. Like I said is more a question of religious position or money than anything else. We're better to focus on real issues like: a) who will provide it? (Actually only Microsoft. What about Mozilla and Opera? ) b) Who is actually implementing something in Mozilla? Status? c) If the answer to b is nobody then how to implement it in Mozilla and who is willing to help. Cheers Didier PH Martin
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 19:03:16 UTC