- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:47:29 +0300
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I will reiterate (for the nth time) that it would be valuable for the W3C to > specify what a "browser" is, in the sense of what protocols, formats and > standards it supports and uses when you feed it a URL. Then it could point a > finger at Amazon and say "that's not a browser, and it's bad because..." I expect it not to be fruitful for the W3C to define what a browser is--especially if the definition would exclude Silk. I, for one, think that the Opera Mini thin client and the server part of Opera Mini form a browser and that it's an implementation detail how the parts are spread across computing devices. I think it's more useful to think of Opera Mini or Silk as distributed (in the distributed computing sense) browsers than as a browser and a proxy, because the parts are tightly coupled and you don't get to swap one part without the other. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 13:48:00 UTC