- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:01:00 -0700
To follow up on this thread, this issue should be resolved in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98215. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. Adam On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: >> On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we >>> fail fast and hard >> >> In some cases, yes. ?It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously. >> >> A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing >> something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than >> raising a spec issue (and still implementing something else if desired). > > I didn't knowingly diverge from the spec. ?I didn't notice the strict > error checking when writing the patch. > >> Especially for things that you're planning to implement unprefixed. > > We implemented this feature without a prefix at Ian's specific request. > >> Likewise for cases when the spec is unclear, etc. ?What's the point of >> having implementations early in the specification process if they don't >> actually provide feedback and instead only serve to lock in behaviors? > > I think you're being a big aggressive. ?In any case, I didn't have any > ill intent. ?I just misunderstood because it never occurred to me that > we'd want to fail hard on this sort of error. > > Adam >
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 22:01:00 UTC