- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:48:11 +1000
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, uri@w3.org
On Friday, December 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Marcos Caceres scripsit: > > > > > > On Friday, December 13, 2013 at 12:43 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > > > > It's in his bibliography. But like most (all?) WHATWG products, it is a > > > reference implementation, not a standard. > > > > > > > > I think you might be confused: a browser is a reference implementation > > (in that you can reference it as attempting to implement a standard); a > > standard is a technical specification that has multiple implementations > > and is overseen by a standardization authority (in this case, the > > WHATWG). > > > > A reference implementation is an implementation that itself constitutes the > standard; if you want to know what the standard prescribes, you fire up > the implementation and try it. WHATWG standards are written in code > (it would be perfectly feasible to write a compiler for it), and that's > why they are reference implementations. > I don’t understand what you mean by they are written in code?
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 02:48:42 UTC