Because it's a strict subset of javascript which is already cross-browser.
> The argument is moot since if Mozilla said that first about PNaCl (that they'd adopt it) it would be PNaCl that would be the cross-browser solution.
PNaCl is still not done, still not fully specified and still full of Chrome implementation details via Pepper.
> No, I don't care about backwards-compatibility. I care about the solution leveraging existing infrastructure and not being a hack.
Which would exclude PNaCl since there's no existing PNaCl infrastructure.
Because it's a strict subset of javascript which is already cross-browser.
> The argument is moot since if Mozilla said that first about PNaCl (that they'd adopt it) it would be PNaCl that would be the cross-browser solution.
PNaCl is still not done, still not fully specified and still full of Chrome implementation details via Pepper.
> No, I don't care about backwards-compatibility. I care about the solution leveraging existing infrastructure and not being a hack.
Which would exclude PNaCl since there's no existing PNaCl infrastructure.