Re: Support Existing Content

> Was it intentional that your reply wasn't sent to the list?

No, sorry.

On 3 May 2007, at 12:51, Jonas Sicking wrote:

>>>> But we live in a real world, sadly.
>>>> We can define away at an error recovery procedure, but we all  
>>>> know the reality is that UAs will all handle errors the way they  
>>>> want to, or is more convenient to them, and each one will handle  
>>>> this differently, and we will be no further on.
>>>
>>> That is not true at all. UAs follow as much of the spec as they  
>>> can. Error handling is just like any other part of the spec. The  
>>> reason UAs don't implement parts of the spec is when it's  
>>> impractical for some reason, such as constrained on resources  
>>> (i.e. spec takes a lot of engineering time to implement) or  
>>> implementing the spec simply does not work (spec is wrong, too  
>>> many pages out there would break, etc)
>>>
>> Ok, but, say for a moment the spec decides that so-called  
>> "draconian" error handling is the way to go. No UA on this list  
>> would support it.
>> So is this just an exercise in massaging the egos of the various  
>> UA developers so that we can get something consistent, or is it  
>> about defining what we envisage is the correct way to have html5  
>> (or whatever it gets called)?
>
> I don't understand the question really.
> You're probably right in that no UA would follow the spec if doing  
> so would make most pages on the web break (i.e. if the spec  
> required draconian errorhandling).
>
> A big reason for the spec is so that UAs will behave consistently  
> yes. Isn't that the reason for all specs?
>
Once again, I don't see how this would "break the web". I understand  
there is a lot of talk of this on the list, but the method proposed  
would /not/ break the web.

Gareth

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 11:55:26 UTC