![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] RE: complexity
From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:32:32 -0400 Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1E96D45A@USAHM010.amer.corp.eds.com> To: www-html@w3.org On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 07:37:11PM +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> If two UAs can implement it, why would a third not be able to? > > Because of cost. Not every browser vendor has such an enormous > > manpower. > Mozilla and Opera both have _extremely_ small development teams. If I > recall correctly the core rendering engine team at Opera is no more > than 6 people, and it is about the same number of people for Mozilla. My definition of "small" is one person in his or her spare time. That isn't realistic for a new desktop browser -- but there haven't been many of those in a while. (Safari is probably the most recent, and that was partly a rebranding of khtml, rather than a completely new browser.) For smaller devices, one hobbyist is often exactly what it available, at least as a bootstrap initial version. For several years, reading on a palm pilot involved shareware or freeware, which didn't have 6 developers. Most of these projects never got around to adding CSS support, because there wasn't a small-but-obviously-useful chunk to start with; it was huge-project or nothing. Presentational html is supported, because it could be done piecemeal. And to be perfectly honest, if the standards are really only aimed at multiple-full-time-developer projects, then why bother to standardize? "What MSIE does", maybe coupled with "what Mozilla and Netscape do" would be just as useful. -jJReceived on Monday, 12 April 2004 11:33:36 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||