AW: [Mono-list] XmlTextReader: MS compatibility, or W3C conformance?
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:27:33 +0900
Atsushi Eno wrote:
> Thanks for your point of view.
>> I could imagine that - if those bugs get reported to MS -
>> Microsoft will fix some of them in a next version of the .NET
>> framework. Till then, our highest priority should be to be 100%
>> compatible to the MS .NET framework behaviour and not to any
>> other standards.
> Well, I have to disagree in some points:
> - With that "if", we cannot provide better solution than
> Microsoft *at any time*. Also, to conform to that "if",
> we have to make libraries vulnerable as well as Microsoft.
> (That's extreme case? Yeah, but then we need certain lines.)
> And if we just follow Microsoft, it won't fix any problems
> in their libraries, since there is no better competitors.
agreed. Having more compliant libraries than ms is a great selling point
> - Even if Microsoft fixes such problems, they will keep
> old libraries lame, and thus "compatibility problem" will
> remain there and in the next stage users will demand to
> make .net 1.1 stuff as "compatible" with buggy old one.
> - We might lose some faithful developers that believes
> standard is important (well, I have to say am apparently
> such one of them that believes code is speech).
again - conformity to standards is important and if mono can do a better
job than ms at this so much the better.
> - Anyways most of .NET developers are ignorant of what
> breaks compatibility, by using "\" in path, using MSSQL
> specific operations etc.
hmm - I'd say thats a broad generalization. And even if its true it not
a good reason for putting more obstacles than necessary in the path of
developers writing x-platform .net code.
> Well, I don't intend to reject all standard-negative opinion but
> want to draw lines between MS compatibility and standard conformance.
> I don't want to be a black sheep here, so many of the developers
> believe that MS compatibility should take precedence at any time,
> I'll post more complete "fix" and wait anyone apply to cvs. I'd
> be glad to fix by myself if there is any rational reason.
The "ms compatibility mode" proposal introduced in another thread could
make a good compromise. There would be a certain amount of overhead but
it would make it easier to determine which exceptions/failures are
compatibility related and smooth the porting process. Similar to the way
browsers like mozilla have an "ie compatibility mode" so that they can
display broken non-conformant ms allowable html but still make standards
compliance a top priority. Having our cake and eating it too - with a
slight cost in complexity.