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
