Re: ISSUE-2, was: Feedback on the ping="" attribute

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > >
> > > Following that, the spec should make any UA that makes an audited 
> > > link indistinguishable from a regular link non-conforming.
> > 
> > That is already the case (unless the implementor knows of "valid 
> > reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is 
> > acceptable or even useful", noting that "the full implications should 
> > be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing").
> Yes. But that doesn't include reasons like
> - we couldn't figure out a UI that doesn't get into the way, or
> - if it doesn't behave like a regular link, click-through rates will go 
> down
> right?

I don't think RFC2119 gives guidance on exactly what consists a "valid 
reason", but I agree with you that those would be poor reasons.

> > Presumably, such user interface details would (like all user interface 
> > details) be left up to the user agent.
> So let's assume one year goes by and we have several UAs shpping with 
> "ping" support, none of them implementing the "should".
> Would you consider the feature a failure then and remove it?

Certainly the feature would have to be revisited -- anything that fails to 
get implemented should be revisited. I couldn't hypothetise about what we 
would do in this particular case, it would depend on the exact situation.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 23:04:58 UTC