From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5d375e920801231026h7bed5625m6f57b7f0f799206a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:26:10 +0200 From: Uriel To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4d6248ae1091c8fef1775a836839f7c1@coraid.com> <13426df10801230813v52d70bc0y450f5e24fca36af1@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3511bd2a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Jan 23, 2008 7:36 PM, Iruata Souza wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008 2:13 PM, ron minnich wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2008 6:17 AM, Iruata Souza wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 2008 7:35 AM, wrote: > > > > > flash doesn't have anything to do with compliance. nor does javascript. > > > speaking of the web, you should be compliant with what you choose to implement. > > > if you only implement html and you're compliant with w3c, you are compliant. > > > > and, arguably, useless. > > > > There is spec compliance and de-facto compliance. Or, maybe, spec > > compliance and > > what people want compliance. > > > that's true. but it's a little hard to state what is a > what-people-want compliance. what-people-want is the Holy Trinity 2.0: Firefox, GCC and Linux. Anything else will never be 'compliant' (unless you are under the Job's distortion field...) uriel