• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    There shouldn’t be any “optional bits”. Thats part of the problem. Either it’s part of a standard or it’s not. Either you meet the standard for that version number, or you don’t.

    • groet@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The problem is that the standard is fucking huge and maybe your browser supports every feature of version 5xx but is missing a feature related to authentication using guinea pigs introduced in v369. So it would only be allowed to advertise compatibility with v368 even though it can do everything except Guinea pigs.

      Realistically you would trim the standard to a core set and advertise compatibility with a version of that and then advertise optional extensions. And that’s optional bits if you ask me.

      • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        A standard is that, a standard. The amount of moving parts (features?) is irrelevant.

        Either it’s up to the standard or it isn’t.