- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:56:58 +0100
- To: "Shane McCarron" <xhtml2-issues@hades.mn.aptest.com>, www-html-editor@w3.org
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:54:57 +0100, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote: > This does not have to be done now however - I think it is better when > done based on browser implementation experience, you’ll then get more > real-world feedback on how invalid things are most easily handled. This would imply implementing said specification twice. One time without testcases based on best guesses and one time based on reverse engineering the market leader which probably has not implemented the optimal solution (see past experiences). This not an option. There are two reasons for that. (1) Implementing a specification two times takes two much time. (2) Given past experiences we want to be sure this time error handling is defined. (3) Given past experiences error handling of the market leader is not always optimal or implementable, even. (Consider the broken DOM model (conformant in some way per the DOM) Internet Explorer implemented for HTML (basically, it was a non-tree model). -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 13:57:07 UTC