[whatwg] Chipset support is a good argument
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jul 6 02:02:51 PDT 2009
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> You've expressed something similar in a couple of the other threads as
> well, and I find it puzzling. It's true that if you spec things that
> will never be implemented, it harms the integrity of the spec. But on
> the other hand, if you allow any one vendor to determine what does or
> does not go into the spec , you're are exposing the spec to a much
> greater risk.
> In at least one other thread  you've implied that you treat all
> browser vendors as equal. If you put this together with the veto power
> it means that any browser vendor, "regardless of size" can get things
> axed from the spec. Am I missing something? What is stopping me from
> becoming a browser vendor and stating flat-out that I will not support
> any of the new additions in HTML5 just to kill off a good chunk of the
> spec? (Since I am working on a browser currently playing catch-up, this
> would certainly make my life easier).
Nothing is stopping you from doing that.
> It seems to me that you need to either take away this veto power you've
> given browser vendors, or you need to draw a line between the vendors
> that do have veto power and the ones that don't.
I haven't given browser vendors this veto power, they have it regardless.
If implementors don't implement the spec, then the spec is fiction.
There's nothing I can do about that.
> If you have already drawn such a line, I would like to know exactly
> where it is and what criteria were used to determine which vendors to
> allow and which ones to disallow.
In practice, a browser vendor has to have an installed base of a percent
or so overall before they can really affect the direction of the Web.
This isn't a decision I have made myself. It's just how the world is.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg