- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 11:40:57 -0700
- To: "Kevin E Kelly" <kekelly@us.ibm.com>, public-cdf@w3.org
- Cc: member-cdf@w3.org
On Wed, 03 May 2006 11:35:56 -0700, Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Thanks for your comments > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0049.html > and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0042.html > > The CDF WG has overwhelming consensus that the profile parameter is > necessary and therefore it will remain as part of the WICD profile. > > No changes were made in response to these comments. As explained in http://www.w3.org/mid/op.s8nwdih364w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com that doesn't address my concerns. I haven't had a reply from the WG to that e-mail explaining why those concerns are not justified as far as I'm aware. Below are the comments I made so other people following the public list can read them as well: * When a new version of XHTML is issued, say XHTML 1.2, we would have to update the URI to some new string. UAs can't just remove the old string as content is still checking for that string. That's a serious issue. Each time a new version of something is introduced and a new string is issued it has to stay permanently on the UA its Accept: header because otherwise content that isn't updated (lots of it isn't) will break. Also given that we currently only cover XHTML, SVG and CSS and likely want this to grow there will be lots of updates over time making it not just a 64 characters growth, but 64*n characters growth where n is a pretty big number. The problem is here that current content can't be future proofed. They don't know the string might change and don't know how it might look otherwise. So my first argument against it would that the proposal isn't forward compatible in any way. * As pointed out, that's not only a problem for the UA, that's also an issue for content. I can currently check for WICD Full 1.0, but at the moment SVGT 1.3 is released or XHTML 1.2 and eithers makes some backwards incompatible changes I would like to know that as an author, but I can't really... * It's unclear to me when UAs can add this to their Accept: header. For example, no UA supports the longdesc="" attribute on the <img> element in XHTML, yet we expect XHTML to be fully supported because otherwise the UA would not issue use this string, right? There are many tiny things that are not fully implemented which will probably not be fixed anytime soon, are we going to delay WICD until 2010 so we can be sure they are? * It's also unclear what happens when a UA discovers a previously unknown bug in their implementation or some specification got changed that puts the UA into non-compliance. Does the string needs to be removed possibly breaking some content over almost nothing? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 18:41:15 UTC