- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:31:03 -0400
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> Excuse me? "Ignorance"? Everyone involved knew exactly what they were doing. >> There were just no good solutions; the small amount of sniffing added seemed >> like the least bad of a set of bad choices. > > I obviously disagree, but that's my opinion. You're entitled to it, and I should clarify that the above only applies to the cases in which I've been able to see the reasoning process that led to the decisions (namely Gecko and Webkit). > 0) The specifications makes sense and unambious to implement Assuming you meant "unambiguous", I agree. If you meant something else, what did you mean? >> 5) At no point in between here and there is a UA required to do something >> that would cause its users to stop using it (an obvious non-starter >> from a UA point of view). >> 6) At no point in between here and there is a server required to do >> something that would cause administrators to stop using it (also an >> obvious non-starter, I would think). > > Yes, with some reservations for 5 & 6. I do expect UAs and servers to be > willing to correct bugs, even if correcting those bugs would cause some > slight interoperability issues with other broken implementations at the > benefit of enabling correct interoperability with correct > implementations. Even if this results in some users shifting one way or > another. So you're asking people to shoot themselves in the foot for the common good. While some may be willing to, in general that's a tough sell if the shooting is significant enough. Put another way, I can't think of a browser that would be willing to, say, sacrifice 5% of market share on this issue. I suspect sacrificing a single user is acceptable. The line is somewhere in between. > - Simplicity. Which is nice if possible, of course. Are we talking simplicity of specification, of implementation, or of deployment? > - No second-guessing or non-obvious sideeffects. If something is said > it is said and should be trusted to be correct. This is nice to have, yes. > - Consistent. As few special cases as possible. Again, this is nice to have. -Boris
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 23:31:55 UTC