- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-appformats@w3.org
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Presumably syntax errors such as this could be found before deployment. > Thus to facilitate future proofing, it seems like ignoring the invalid > value would be best (for example in case the syntax and/or semantics of > a pseudo-attribute's value changes in a subsequent version of the spec). Quick note -- we should make sure that whatever the error-handling / fallback logic is, it defaults to secure rather than defaulting to allow. In particular, if AC has a construct that allows a PI to override a previous PI to narrow the allowed domains, for instance, then a failure in the syntax of the second PI should lock out _all_ domains. (I haven't checked to see if that is an example that makes sense, but hopefully you understand the point I'm making.) Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 19:27:09 UTC