First: Oliver and webkit-dev, sorry for the above email; I wrote it in haste and am now repenting it at leisure.
Ryosuke—you’re right; given that the WebKit project goals page has ten high-level goals, of course activity is guided by some trade-off between them. Dominic On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
