brendan at mozilla.org
Thu Jan 22 16:05:54 PST 2015
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully
> implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully
> compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!!
> Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision?
> I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant
> with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ?
Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere
near "done" (is it yet?) before marketeers at browser vendors started
touting compatibility and various players hyped the orange shield. (And
then Hixie said it was a living spec, version-free. :-P)
The reason to label editions or releases is not to give marketeers some
brand suffix with which to tout or hype. It's to organize a series of
reasonably debugged specs that implementors have vetted and (partly or
I agree it would be best if (partly or mostly) were "fully", but that's
not practical with big "catch-up" specs. With "rapid-er release" annual
editions, it should be a goal, IMNSHO. That's the promised land we seek:
implementor- and developer-tested draft matter that "sticks" and *then*
gets the de-jure stamp of approval.
More information about the es-discuss