Wednesday March 1st, 2000
This release doesn't contain the crypto code yet. That is still to come. But feel free to download! Currently only Linux and Windows builds available -- more to come. When's the crypto code arriving? "Really, really soon", from what I've heard.
#104 Re: I Love the W3C!
Sunday March 5th, 2000 1:23 AM
You are replying to this message
Sometimes, it is simply not possible to write a new standard that is perfectly compatible with the old one. Other times, it is not desireable. The more backwards-compatible you try to make a new standard, the more complicated it becomes. This complexity takes its toll in a couple ways:
1) It makes the standard harder to understand...you have two or three different ways of doing some things; this is going to confuse someone that is trying to learn, say, HTML by reading the spec.
2) It makes the standard harded to implement. If the W3C put (for example) NS4.X's document.layers call into the DOM1 spec, then Opera and IE would both need to implement it in order to be DOM-1 compliant. But wait...if they put in document.layers, shouldn't they put in IE's document.all() too? You end up with every browser being required to support every other brower's (formerly) proprietary extensions in order to be standards compliant. I'd bet that if that happened, the browser makers would all start ignoring the standard because it'd be too much trouble to implement.
There needs to be /one/ correct way to write a web page, in order to avoid a massive duplication of effort by web and browser developers. In order for this to happen, the other ways have to be labelled 'wrong', and their use discouraged.
This is not, BTW, saying that HTML 3.2 documents will suddenly be 'wrong'...they will still be valid HTML 3.2. However, for things like the DOM, where there were two competing de facto 'standards', it's important for those pseudostandards to be re-cast into a single 'correct' technique, through the efforts of a standards body like the W3C.