Re: gtkhtml2 vs. gtkhtml1

On 20 Sep 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 14:15, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > > 	Since we effectively provide a sort of 'DOM' via the Atk system, it
> > > seems particularly pointless to waste a huge amount of time creating
> > > another parallel-but-different way to do so, since it cannot (shouldn't)
> > > add anything useful that Atk+ doesn't do.
> > 
> > But a "sort of DOM" is not w3c DOM, which is what the w3c UAG requires.
> 	Yes, my question is why bother with the w3c spec, when it mandates that
> we waste our time[1], providing duplicate functionality with a different
> API. It seems that only Australia has 'reference to w3c' standards. [cf.
> 	So - does that mean we have to spend months duplicating effort,
> producing an interface that it's unlikely anyone will ever use, and
> doesn't give any more power ?

'The anyone will ever use' is only correct in this context if you refer to
accessability - there are many non-accessability uses for DOM. Whetever
these matter to teh respective maintainers is another question entirely

> 	Hmm,
> 		Michael.
> [1] - in absolutely huge truck loads.
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


	This is the place where all
	the junkies go	
	where time gets fast
	but everything gets slow

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]