- From: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:56:41 +0300
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Le Wed, 10 May 2006 22:54:05 +0300, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> a écrit: > On 2006/05/10, at 12:31 PM, Mihai Sucan wrote: >> >> When developers have to have their sites compatible with more and more >> user agents (on various devices)... such features are just an added >> layer of headaches for developers who use them. > > What would you recommend as an alternative? Let the developers figure out the answer to that question when coding their applications. They'll definitely find better solutions. Give them freedom, not (future) common pitfalls. Oh, and there's no recommended alternative. It's utopic IMHO to believe there's a way to properly check for conformance, unless we do it the XML-way or the "compilation method". What I mean, if some C/C++/whatever code compiles it also means it will "properly" run according to the author (given he hasn't done any logical mistake and he has no obvious bugs in the code). The XML-way is "don't do anything until the document is entirely and correctly parsed". Then you can ensure your code either runs or not. This is something many people would not like, and probably that includes me. Opera 9 already provides a way to work around the XML parsing error, which IMHO is very useful. All this diversity of the web is actually good, even if now there are millions (billions) of tag-soup pages with outrageous JavaScript code and whatever. Your proposal for indicating XHR conformance would be awesome and perfect, given a perfect world. -- http://www.robodesign.ro ROBO Design - We bring you the future
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 08:56:57 UTC