>> 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.
>
>
oops...I meant "compete on Implementation"
David Fu.
