- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:29:37 -0400
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <splintered@gmail.com>, "Philip TAYLOR \(Ret'd\)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
easy is a cop out. compliant is compliant. the spec should be written to achieve an end which is to provide clear information of syntactical correctness. Other documents can then lay out the course for deriving results up from that. If we fork the spec, the fork of least resistance and most likely, less accessible in this case will be the one most travelled. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> To: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <splintered@gmail.com>; "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>; "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>; "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>; "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>; "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>; "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>; <public-html@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:19 AM Subject: Re: Flickr and alt David Poehlman wrote: > Right, either you are compliant with a spec or you are not. It is like > programming. you can write a lousy app and it may work but... > interestingly > in some programming environments, they won't run at all if not done right. Not that great an example, since you can write an app "per spec" and it won't run in some programming environments. In fact this is a quite common problem with a number of existing languages: following the language spec is no guarantee of things working, because of bugs in the compilers, interpreters, virtual machines, standard libraries, etc. > Ths is not to say you can't choose to be non compliant, but we cannot > provide for exceptions in the spec because those who don't want to be > compliant but want to claim compliance will work hard to fit themselves > into > the exceptions. This seems to be using a circular definition of compliance.... Ideally the spec would have the following properties: 1) Being compliant with the spec is the easy thing to do (leads to the "right" behavior from the point of view of authors). 2) Being compliant with the spec leads to the "right" behavior from the point of view of those viewing (hearing, smelling, whatever) the content. Sadly, this is pretty difficult because at heart authors are lazy (just like all of us, and this is not a bad thing!) and the "right" behavior from the viewer's point of view varies so widely by viewer.... -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 14:30:30 UTC