4 ms·
and really this should be the path: define a new convention, then standardized after - if it's needed (spoiler: probably not going to need it). This is definite
by dowager_dan99 2y ago
and really this should be the path: define a new convention, then standardized after - if it's needed (spoiler: probably not going to need it). This is definitely not perfect; it's incredibly painful to retrofit standards, but I'm not convinced it's less work than creating a bunch of standards no one needs.
- IgorPartola 2y agoPlease don’t. In theory this works for some things. But when you have multiple implementations of the browser doing different things given the same code it is a nightmare. A solid well defined spec is necessary in that case.
- braiamp 2y agoIn which case, the need for the spec should be obvious from the onset. Nobody though that html would be used the way it was used today. But we now know the same things as they knew back then, meaning that we do not know nothing, we don't know what will be used and need interoperability. Also, specs means nothing if each implementation can and will do whatever they want (ie. Chrome vs Firefox vs Edge)