- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:54:50 +0000
Mike Schinkel wrote: > The lesser problems (20%) are that it will take time for reasonably good > ones to evolve, and many will be subtly incompatible because of a variety of > reasons: a.) lack of complete understand of the spec, b.) time-to-market > concerns, c.) belief that full compatibility is not worth the expense, > and/or d.) poor programmer skillls. As someone in the process of implementing a HTML5 parser from the spec, my _only_ complaint so far is that there aren't (yet) any testcases. The spec is very clearly written and structured in such a way that it can be converted almost directly to code (of course, not all implementers will want to use the exact architecture this implies). > True, but on Windows servers you can't write ISAPI without C++, and Windows > will continue to be a large market. In other cases, pure-dynamic language > implementations are too slow to be viable. Put references to implementations > in the spec, and the web hosts will use it. The spec shouldn't contain references to implementations. However the wiki should contain such a list (see http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Implementations ). -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 03:54:50 UTC