Re: Support Existing Content

On May 2, 2007, at 4:53 AM, Gareth Hay wrote:

> On 2 May 2007, at 12:49, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Just to elaborate:
>> It seems to me that undefined error handling corresponds to no  
>> equilibrium, Draconian error handling corresponds to unstable  
>> equilibrium and defined error recovery corresponds to stable  
>> equilibrium.
> 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.

Why would the UA vendors who are specifically asking for defined  
error handling ignore the defined error handling? And if they are  
specifically asking for more interoperability in error handling, why  
would they all do it differently?


Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:27:20 UTC