W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposed Design Principles updated

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:56:41 +0900
Message-Id: <421A49CF-ABC6-457F-A0FE-37611CA59432@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>


Le 3 avr. 2007 à 16:26, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
> * Constraint: Data-metadata inconsistency
> Agents MUST NOT ignore message metadata without the consent of the  
> user.
> (The cited example of warning about or refusing to render a jpeg  
> with a type of image/gif would violate Don't Break The Web and is  
> unlikely to be implemented.)

Another *real* example where browsers content sniffing is bad in  
usability. For example, I'm writing a blog post about HTML design. I  
want to show the source code of an HTML file. I then use an object  
element and configure the server to send the html file as *text/plain*

<object data="test.html">
    <p>Source code of a HTML document</p>
</object>

What I want to see is the source code, not the HTML.


> * Principle: Error recovery
> Agents that recover from error by making a choice without the  
> user's consent are not acting on the user's behalf.
> (This is opposed to Handle Errors and our charter goals to handle  
> tag soup.)

Not exactly.
Silent recovery can be an option for the users. It is perfectly  
possible to leave the choice to the user to see or not the error  
recovery.
Counter case of your argument: Web developers. It is very useful for  
a developer to have a non silent recovery mode in a browser. To help  
fixing mistakes at development stage.
For example, for having well-formed mark-up one of my way to do that  
is to give .xhtml file extension to my files, so if it is not well- 
formed the browser is choking right away.
It is a lot more agile method by putting the checking at the  
development stage.
So the Error recovery IMHO is not opposite to your principles.

Another thing browsers are only one class of products.

For each principles think about the different class of products.
	Authoring tools
	Libraries producing contents
	Search engines
	Checking tools
	etc.

I'm pretty sure it would help to kill some debates and would help to  
have a better picture of the whole thing.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 01:59:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:52 GMT