> 2005 - Person B has a browser which fully complies with modern > recommendations for handling the "text/html" document. They encounter > "profound.html", but their browser throws obscure error messages and > refuses to render the HTML. Person B assumes that the document is > corrupted, and doesn't read the document. Would the following be considered a reasonable error message? "Error - unrecognised element <xmp>. Other errors ommitted. Click for details: The following is a best attempt at rendering, note that this is not a reliable rendering due to the above errors: ... " In other words we bring back "liberal in what you receive", but as part of the actual error message. This would provide a degree of backwards compatibility, and indeed some of the advantages claimed for liberal handling of errors, while remaining a clear error. I used <xmp> in my example to raise the point that if you do attempt to have a best-attempt rendering as part of an error message then some errors will almost inevitably cascade into further errors. Given that <xmp><zxcv><asdf><qwert></xmp> had been valid, this would be an example of such. -- Jon Hanna | Toys and books <http://www.hackcraft.net/> | for hospitals: | <http://santa.boards.ie>Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 05:27:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT