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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:53:37 +0100
Message-Id: <F0096ED5-7B65-451A-A5AA-732B4BF579C9@gmail.com>
Cc: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>


On 2 May 2007, at 12:49, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On May 2, 2007, at 14:42, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> You might have more success with your argument if you showed using  
>> Game Theory, why in a multiplayer "game" (i.e. market) none of the  
>> "players" (i.e. vendors) have an incentive to be more permissive  
>> towards the legacy baseline of permissiveness than the others.
>>
>> In addition, it would help to show an incentive for the first  
>> vendor to move from the status quo towards less permissiveness  
>> without all the vendors moving in lockstep.
>
> Just to elaborate:
> It seems to me that undefined error handling corresponds to no  
> equilibrium, Draconian error handling corresponds to unstable  
> equilibrium and defined error recovery corresponds to stable  
> equilibrium.
>
But we live in a real world, sadly.
We can define away at an error recovery procedure, but we all know  
the reality is that UAs will all handle errors the way they want to,  
or is more convenient to them, and each one will handle this  
differently, and we will be no further on.
Draconian or no, actually stopping rendering will makes more sense to  
me.

As I have said off-list, the people, myself included, who want this  
are clearly the minority on the list, and are not able to change the  
opinion of anyone else, rather than waste my time and yours debating  
it, I think I'll concede and go off and spend my time more  
constructively.

Gareth
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 11:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT