- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 11:55:00 +0100
- To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "matt@builtfromsource.com" <matt@builtfromsource.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 4 May 2007, at 22:32, Jeff Schiller wrote: > On 5/4/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> Furthermore, >> a must-reject policy is an unstable equilibrium, as Henri Sivonen >> pointed out. If one UA mistakenly falls back on some error, ships, >> and content starts depending on it, then other UAs have a motive to >> emulate that error handling. And soon we are back to the ground zero >> of mutually reverse-engineered error handling. > > I've had this same thought - and thank you Maciej for phrasing it > succinctly. > > Though I wonder, if a UA mistakenly implements proposed error handling > in WHATWG's HTML5 and content starts depending on it, isn't that > roughly the same problem? You're still going to have a UA improperly > implementing a spec, content depending on it, and other UAs motivated > to emulate this incorrect behavior. My understanding seems to be that UA vendors are allowed to selectively implement in anyway they see fit, as the next spec will document their way for the other UAs to 'catch-up' with this new way.
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 10:55:13 UTC