- From: Gordon Worley <redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:37:31 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-html <www-html@w3.org>
Inanis Brooke wrote: >If enough of us thought that this was a good idea, how could such a program >be started? The program starting business I will leave to the suits, but here's how it would work. Each browser wanting to be certified would submit the code for their HTML, CSS2, XML, or whatever parser to the W3C. The W3C then goes through their parser and sees which parts of the recomendation it covers. The code for their ECMAScript parser will be needed, too, since it is tied in closely with many of the interactive features of HTML 4.0 CSS-P (included in CSS2). Other code may be needed, too, since some browsers aren't as robust as they should be. I realize that the big-wigs at Microsoft will probably be reluctant at first, but competition will more likely than not take care of their unwillingness to show their code to the W3C. >Also, if plugins would take too many system resources, and might not even be >able to replace the text/html renderer, then would it be a worthwhile notion >to suggest to some of the bigger browser makers to release small patches to >the HTML renderer for previous browsers? That way, individuals who cannot >upgrade to more recent browsers, especially the upcoming fifth generation >from MS and NS, on account of their "slow computer," could grab the upgrade >to the browser if they so chose. Again, the competition element comes into >play, and the big two are very competitive. I have thought about this in the past, as well, but because of the amount of code often changed between verions, patches and updaters are impractical. So much of the code is often changed that many people would rather just download the new version than the patch. ________________________________________ Red Bird Island Productions Gordon Worley http://www.crosswinds.net/orlando/~redbird/ mailto:redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net
Received on Sunday, 3 January 1999 22:35:51 UTC