> Stuart Ballard wrote:
>> Here's a can of worms: Do we actually *want* to be better than Sun's
>> implementation, featurewise? For the same reason that we as Free runtime
>> users
>> and developers hate it when people write code which (inadvertently or
>> not)
>> relies on features that are only in Sun's implementation (eg the
>> undocumented
>> sun.* bits that Free runtimes have no intention to duplicate), IMO it's
>> not such
>> a good idea to end up in a situation where people might inadvertently
>> rely on
>> features that only Classpath provides, making their code not portable to
>> other
>> implementations.
>>
>> It's one thing if we put extra stuff into Classpath-specific packages so
>> that
>> people will need to make a conscious choice to use it. But adding CSS
>> support
>> that will silently fail to work on Sun's implementation seems dangerous.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> Implement the CSS spec, not Sun's implementation.
> --
> Chris Burdess
>
>
Yeah, a well established standard like CSS should take more precedence
over poorly defined parts Sun's spec. Anyway, the reason for a common
specification, is so that we can compete on Implemenation. ;)
David fu.
