Karl Dubost wrote:
What will be interesting to see if they all perl, python, C, Ruby, etc.
libraries will follow this model once it is defined. It would be good I
guess for the new WG to gather implementation experience, not only in
desktop browsers but also in all applications consuming or producing HTML.
Though IMHO, layout engines are just one part of it.
The fact is that whatever we define must be compatible with desktop
browsers above everything else. That is what the vast majority of
authors write HTML for, it's what they test in and it's how they expect
all other tools to handle it. I'm not saying that getting
implementation experience from other tools wouldn't be valuable, just
that it's far more practical for other tools to base their
implementations on desktop browsers, than the other way around.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
In addition, if the role of the W3C is simply to to place
its seal of approval on what /is/, rather than on what
/should be/, then I for one would find that a very
disturbing (not to say depressing) state of affairs.
The W3C needs to release specs that can actually be useful in the real
world, not ones that are just nice in theory, but totally impractical to
implement. For HTML, if the W3C released another specification that
required SGML parsing, it would be completely useless because it is
practically impossible for browser vendors to conform to such
requirements without breaking a significant portion of existing web sites.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
