- From: E.E. Mellor <eem21@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:47:53 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Irene.Vatton@inrialpes.fr
- cc: Peter Signell <signell@physnet.pa.msu.edu>, www-amaya@w3.org
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 Irene.Vatton@inrialpes.fr wrote: > Amaya is mainly an authoring tool and not a browser. It supports only browser > functionalities needed to author Web page. > For that reason, there is no support for JavaScript, animated gifs and other > dynamic things except form activations. Is this the attitude that is going to be taken in the future? I think it is very important that the W3C has a fully functional browser - this could be used as a testbed for new technologies as well as an example of a conforming implementation of existing ones. Why should Amaya not be that browser? I understand that the core Amaya team was put together to work to produce an authoring tool, and that they may well wish to continue along that road. I have no intention of dismantling or obstructing that work. However, I see no reason that Amaya cannot be a good browser *as well*. The intention to make public the Amaya CVS tree has been announced. I saw that as an opportunity for work to be done in areas that were not in the brief, or not of interest to, those currently working on Amaya. This would allow development of the editor features to continue at full pace whilst work was done elsewhere on Amaya. I was intending to work on browser features of Amaya. However, if that is going to be against the wishes of the core development team, obviously that is going to be impossible. Ewan Mellor.
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 1999 06:48:48 UTC