On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Rob Burns wrote:
I have to say I like Philippe's version of the page better. I think
it is more appropriate for an open source project like webkit. I
would agree with Maciej that the word "stable" might be more
appropriate than "full". However, I think its better to show all of
the standards whether targeted by Apple or not. It might make sense
to have an asterisk on the "no" response to indicate that Apple has
no plans to target a particular standard.
The set of specs that currently have no support isn't necessarily
identical to the set we are not targetting, or the set we would
categorically rule out default support for. I think there are pretty
few in the last category, and a huge number in the first if you take a
broad view of what standards count.
I would rather list the standards we *do* currently care about
(including things like IETF RFCs, ECMA standards, ISO standards, etc)
than try to list a complete or partial list of ones we don't care about.
However, I assume other contributors are free to bring standard
supports to WebKit. I know of two such projects myself where
contributors are working to bring standards support to WebKit not
currently targeted by Apple.
Perhaps the status column should be one of:
• No* (not targeted by Apple)
Again, I'm not sure "No" adds much value relative "things not on this
list probably are not currently targetted". I certainly do not want to
make a commitment on behalf of either Apple or the whole WebKit
project that we won't support particular specs.
webkit-dev mailing list