- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:07:58 -0800
- To: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Tex Texin wrote to <mailto:www-international@w3.org>, <mailto:w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, <mailto:w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, and <mailto:www-style@w3.org> on 5 December 2003 in "Re: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS" (<mid:3FD1453D.3252B143@i18nguy.com>): > I would be happy for either the brain-altering meds http://www.fluoxetine.com/ http://www.abilify.com/ Cheers. (And goodbye, refractory depression!) > or some justification. I won't repeat Ian Hickson's arguments or ask him to do so. The discussion is archived. What I consider Ian's salient points are in the following messages. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Mar/0028.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Feb/0199.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Feb/0254.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Feb/0278.html In summary: Junk happens. Declaring it unparsable does not eliminate it and probably won't significantly reduce it. If we don't specify the error handling for every case, agents will vary in their error handling, leaving authors with headaches and questions. The closest thing to uniformity will be the reverse engineering of the market leader's behavior. Even when a wayward author or agent has created and published junk, something is intended by it. Rejecting the junk altogether deprives the reader/consumer of what could be at least partial interpretation. -- Etan Wexler. "Meow": me, ow.
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 22:07:16 UTC