[TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM

[Mark Miller]

On Oct 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Chris Pine <chrispi at opera.com> wrote:
> Yes, I read that.  I am extremely doubtful that Microsoft is suddenly so
> concerned about browser compatibility for the benefit of the web.  (When
> IE passes the Acid 2 test, let's talk again.)
>
> It's nice that MS has constructed this document identifying browser
> differences.  But frankly, this is too little, too late.  We are
> painfully aware of the significant differences.  Suggesting that we all
> sit down and strive to fix every last trivial discrepancy under the
> guise of "browser compatibility" is manipulative and, from a business
> standpoint, absurd.  It is an unnecessary task that would never be
> completed.
>
> In essence, it is just another stalling tactic.


When I raised non-technical points critical of the ES4 proposal,
people rightly shot back with a "technical discussion only!" response,
which I've respected. Since then, most of the traffic on the list has
been non-technical criticisms of the critics of the ES4 proposal. Much
of this traffic, such as the message I quote above, continues to
speculate about the motives of others, rather than engaging with what
they are saying. My comments, which provoked so much response,
contained no such speculation. I can only conclude that, on this list,
the injunction "technical discussion only!" should be interpreted as
carrying the additional clause "unless you agree with us."


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM