Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I must admit though that while I initially assumed that this would be an
> > obvious goal that browser vendors would all be eager to reach, I have yet
> > to see anyone indicate that they're interested in this. So maybe it is in
> > fact not a goal. I don't know.
>
> I think it must be a non-goal for competing browser vendors. For a new
> browser, esp. bootstrapped in JS, it's a no-brainer.
>
> This suggest going bottom-up, not top-down: try to unify two, then
> three, subsystems. Don't multiply risk of independent events into a tiny
> odds ratio.
I don't understand how to do this in a backwards-compatible way.
It may be that you have to keep compatibility, which means larger API
surface over time, new more-unified and old less-unified subsystems
coexisting. That's how the Web has grown in other areas. Original DOM
didn't reflect all elements; in the '90s things evolved in layers.
Nevertheless if you can't get implementors on side, that's a strong signal.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
