- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:05:07 -0700
On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> However, what seems to be more likely is that one tool refuses to >> fetch >> the file (because the URI parser didn't like it), while in the other >> case, the tool puts the invalid URL on to the wire > > IMHO this is basically the definition of a standards failure. > > >> I think this is totally ok > > I think considering this behaviour to be ok is basically ignoring 19 > years > of experience with the Web which has shown repeatedly and at huge cost > that having different tools act differently in the same situation is > a bad > idea and only causes end users to have a bad experience. > > >> If the consequence of this is that invalid URLs do not interoperate, >> then I think this is a *feature*, not a bug. > > I fundamentally disagree. Users don't care what the source of a lack > of > interoperability is. Whether it's an engineering error or a flaw in > the > standard or a flaw in the content is irrelevant, the result is the > same: > an unhappy user. I largely agree with Ian's perspective on this. The primary purpose of standards is to enable interoperability, therefore failure to interoperate is by definition a standards failure (either in the design of the standard or in correct implementation of the standard). Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 15:05:07 UTC