- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:25:22 -0400
On 5/12/11 6:15 PM, Jer Noble wrote: > I understand what you're saying. By making the error case deliberately ambiguous, you're trying to force the author to behave in a certain way. Not quite. I think Robert handled this in his response to this mail, so I'll just stick to following that subthread. > However, I disagree that this is a) likely to work and b) likely to be less confusing than the alternative. Yeah, I think that's where our disagreement lies. > Of course, one solution to both confusion and incorrect expectations is documentation. :-) See what Robert said. Past performance is no guarantee of future behavior, etc, but my hopes are not high. :( >> Keep in mind that the "user denies" case is very likely to be a _rare_ case. The common cases would be "user accepts" and "user defers". > > I agree with the first statement. However, I don't expect that "user defers" will actually be that common. > > If you look at the "Suggested UA Policy" portion of the spec, most cases are either implicitly accepted or denied without user prompting. Hmm. OK, but that does mean that the "user defers" case will probably just end up broken if sites never see it... The only way I see to prevent such breakage is to not have rare cases. Above I was arguing that we should merge the rare "user denies" case into the common "user defers" case, but if their rarity is reversed I still think they should be merged.... -Boris
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 18:25:22 UTC