W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: UA norm for redirects (both META and http)

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:25:14 +0000
Cc: Andrew Sidwell <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <B8EAA9C4-A8FF-4C99-8C11-490F64269395@robburns.com>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>

HI Geoffrey,

On May 29, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:

>
> On 29 May 2008, at 17:28, Robert J Burns wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
>>
>>> Justin James wrote:
>>>> Is it the business of the HTML specification to define the  
>>>> behavior of the
>>>> UA's UI in this manner? I truly hope not. Maybe there are other  
>>>> instances in
>>>> the spec where stuff like this occurs, but this is logically  
>>>> equal to, "UAs
>>>> that maintain a back/forward history must use a left-pointing and a
>>>> right-pointing arrow graphic on the buttons that provide this
>>>> functionality."
>>>
>>> The HTML5 spec should only be used to specify what is required for  
>>> interoperability, nothing else.  If the WG wants to recommend UI  
>>> for browsers, it should do so in a seperate document, so as to not  
>>> confuse what is required for interoperability.  Either that, or  
>>> take this up as an issue with individual browsers, because unless  
>>> the implementors want to do this, the specification will be ignored.
>>
>> This is needed for interoperability. If an author uses meta  
>> redirects that are handled properly by one UA, but cannot count on  
>> them being handled properly by another UA, that is an  
>> interoperability issue.
>
> What UI is used for redirects, however, is not an interoperability  
> issue. The specification already defines how meta redirects are to  
> be followed. I see no interoperability issues that leaves open.

Imagine an author is creating a meta redirect and uses a specific  
browser to test the redirect. This author finds that the specific  
browser handles the redirect nicely and decides the accessibility  
advice given up until now is no longer necessary (because the browser  
used for the testing provides sufficient UI to notify vision impaired  
users that a redirect has occurred and that  the now out-of-date  
bookmark has been update on the user»s behalf). Now the advice  
previously given to not use such redirects, but instead provide a page  
linking to the new page, seems to this author unnecessary. The author  
decides, there’s no reason to even provide a delay to notify the user  
of a redirect (one that may eventually expire). However, since only  
the test browser does the correct thing in this situation, we have an  
interoperability issue where other users will not be able to learn of  
the redirect.

That to me is an interoperability issue. Besides, HTML5 already  
address all sorts of issues that aren’t even as much of an  
interoperability issue as I just described, so I'm not sure why we  
have this double standard in passing judgment on issues and proposals.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 17:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC