On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Rob Burns wrote:

Hello all,

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
• No* (not targeted by  Apple)
• Partial
• Stable

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

Reply via email to