On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Beth Dakin wrote:

> 
> On Jul 10, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
> 
>> I would think we'd close it when we've actually completely implemented
>> MathML.  
> 
> If this is what you want the bug to represent, then it does make sense to 
> keep all feature-implementation bugs related to this master bug, but none of 
> the bug bugs…if that makes any sense.The bug bugs should be in the MathML 
> component, but they shouldn't block the feature-complete bug.
> 
>> Just
>> enabling it seems like something we could do now but our implementation is
>> quite impoverished with respect to MathML 3.0.
> 
> I think we should consider enabling MathML. Just because we don't have MathML 
> 3.0 implemented yet doesn't mean we need to keep it off; there was a time 
> when we didn't have any CSS 3 implemented, but that didn't mean our CSS 
> implementation had to be turned off! I have been playing around with a 
> MathML-enabled build, and I feel like we do a pretty good job getting a lot 
> of MathML on the web right, and I haven't experienced any crashes in the 
> MathML code either. And if we turn it on, more people will test it, and that 
> is just plain helpful. Just my opinion!

I think it's fine to enable MathML soon, as long as we make sure of the 
following:

1) Using a MathML-enabled build shouldn't cause stability problems or 
functional or performance regressions when browsing ordinary non-MathML content.
2) We should try to do some fuzz testing to verify that MathML doesn't create 
security risks.

#2 can happen after we enable MathML, but should probably happen before anyone 
ships it.

Regards,
Maciej

_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev

Reply via email to