Starting new thread... On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Dominic Cooney <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: >>> >>> > Good day, everyone! >>> > >>> > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, >>> > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a >>> > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the >>> > browser. >>> > >>> > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our >>> > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is >>> > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + >>> > Dart) in the first place. >>> As I have already said, we already support multiple bindings being in >>> use at the same time. >> >> >> Those bindings are different because the code that uses them is not >> activated from web pages. Looking at the specific posted patches, those >> changes seem necessary to support activating a different language from a >> page eg <script> tag. So I think while that your specific claim that WebKit >> supports multiple bindings at the same time is true, it misses the point. >> >> No I was getting sick of the continual claim that this was about >> supporting multiple VMs/bindings, rather than adding proprietary extensions >> to webkit >> >> >> >>> Continuing to claim that is your goal is not helpful. Your goal is to >>> allow additional non-standard languages to be provided by webcontent. This >>> is an academic exercise as it doesn't match webkit's goal of being a >>> standards compliant engine, >> >> >> Is that WebKit’s goal? >> >> >> Um, yes. From http://www.webkit.org/projects/goals.html (I'm fairly >> sure this has already been quoted in an earlier email but just to bring it >> back in context): >> GoalsWeb Content EngineThe project's primary focus is content deployed >> on the World Wide Web, using standards-based technologies such as HTML, >> CSS, JavaScript and the DOM. >> --Oliver >> > > I intended the question about whether standards compliance was a goal > rhetorically, in that it seems to me that this goal is honored or ignored > capriciously. >
While standards compliance is clearly a good goal, we do have constraints such as having to be compatible with the existing Web content, and for that matter, be consistent with other UAs. Perhaps, what you experienced is that? (i.e. conflict of interests between standards compliance vs. Web/backwards compatibility) - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
