- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:52:36 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >* Terje Bless wrote: >>The problem here lies in defining "messages where it makes sense". If >>you have an idea of how to do that I'd love to hear it. The best I can >>come up with is deciding on a case-by-case basis; and that hardly >>scales... > >Does it need to "scale"? Yes. The proposed solution must scale to match the scope of the problem. In this case, the pertinent consideration is "It works for one error message, and for two, and for five, but for all 300 of them?" We can look at a specific error message and decide whether open elements should be displayed for that particular message, but the resources are not available to perform this evaluation for every error message individually. i.e. it does not scale. The three ways out are 1) maintain the status quo, 2) find a solution that scales better -- some broader rules of categorization perhaps -- and 3) add it as pertinent messages are found. I do not believe option #3 is a good solution as it is too arbitrary -- and special cases have a cost! -- and provides too little value compared to the necessary effort. Hence the wish for a more "scaleable" solution. :-) - -- Ladies and gentlemen, you must resist those all-too-human feelings and decide this case on the evidence. And the evidence plainly shows that Mr. Landa's injuries, disfiguring as they are, are nowhere near as important to a free society as the fundamental right to make smart-ass remarks. -- Katie @ AtAT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIcJQqPyPrIkdfXsEQLn3gCeKLxO5nl+a7Mo9QA540wzPCQu8xsAniD9 jvVmn76kuEruWvQ2GGloqviM =TJHm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 19:52:49 UTC