Re: image width & height, summary

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> The fact that some high-profile site made an assumption,
> ("all images are available at load time") and some other
> site made a different assumption ("there is no limit to
> the number of images on a page, because only the visible
> segment of the page images are cached or guaranteed to
> be loaded") and it's impossible to build a browser that
> always satisfies both sets of assumptions, even though
> both sets of assumptions are true *most* of the time  --
> what's the design  principle for deciding who wins?
> High-profile sites assumptions are more valuable?


It's very possible to build a browser that satisfies both of those
assumptions except in low-memory situations.

If a conforming Web site is only allowed to make assumptions that can be
guaranteed in arbitrary low-memory situations, it won't be able to do
anything.

This would allow careful authors and authoring tools to create
> robust code that does not rely unnecessarily on assumptions
> that are difficult to ensure, while the algorithmic description
> provides guidance on how to implement something that doesn't
> "break" current pages, or those written with incorrect
> assumptions, while allowing more vendor flexibility.


Since careful authors and authoring tools are in the minority, the vendor
flexibility you seek does not exist. Treating these interoperability details
as non-normative provides no benefit to vendors, or anyone else. And it has
costs: work for spec authors wrangling over what should or shouldn't be
normative, and work for Web authors as they try to understand and avoid
non-normative assumptions.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]