W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, interoperability

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:30:59 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906010730j62ac2a55l1093750d71a0b9a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> 8.2
> For the sake of interoperability, extensions to the configuration document are NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
> 8.3
> User agents SHOULD impose their own implementation-specific limits on the values of otherwise unconstrained attribute types, e.g. to
> prevent denial of service attacks, to guard against running out of memory, or to work around platform-specific limitations.
>
> So what is actually said about interoperability?
> Extension to the configuration document is a similar interoperability issue as the implementation-specific limit is, IMHO.
>

No, they are different...

> Rules for limits or simply limits shall be specified to facilitate interoperability.

You can't dictate those rules in the spec because they are based on
the capability of the device. For example, there might be devices out
there that can handle a HTML canvas at size 32,000 x 32,000. You can't
go mandating in the spec that such values are not allowed because of
constraints and limitation of today's hardware and software. If the
implementation can handle really big things, then it should be free to
do so; if not, it can impose its own constraints so not to crash.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 14:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT