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

Mark Miller erights at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 10:49:02 PDT 2007

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


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list