On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 olafBuddenhagen@web.de wrote:
>
> Speaking of "core teams" is misleading. It doesn't change the fact that
> you need several dozens of developers and five years to create a
> full-featured web browser that is terribly slow, implements only a
> fraction of W3C standards, and is terribly buggy with others.

Yes; as I mentioned in another e-mail on this thread, this is the same as
for other application plaforms, such as desktop GUIs (Win32, Gnome,
MacOSX), macro-enabled office suites (OpenOffice, WordPerfect), database
systems (DBase, Paradox), etc.

This is not really that surprising. It also takes hundreds of people to
make a good video game these days. Or a high quality feature film.

Why is this particularly a problem?


>> Anyway, I would recommend being more specific in your criticisms.
>
> There is no point in being more specific in DOM or CSS criticism on a
> HTML list.

Please point out the specific problems in the appropriate lists. Only that
way can we fix them.


> As for XHTML 2, I've already mentioned the things that give me a
> headache: XForms and XInclude. Oh, and <nl> of course, if I really
> wanted to implement it the way it is described in the standard.
> Otherwise, the current draft is really nice in terms of implementation
> cost.

I agree XForms is a problem, and that XInclude (due to its dependence on
XPointer) is non-trivial. <nl> seems reasonably simple though, especially
given a technology like XBL or HTCs, which any browser aiming to be an
application platform really has to implement anyway.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                          `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'