- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:27:04 +0100
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Sunday, December 7, 2003, 10:38:28 AM, Jim wrote: JL> "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote in message JL> news:682146176.20031207040800@w3.org... >> On Saturday, December 6, 2003, 4:25:57 PM, Jim wrote: >> JL> "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote in message >> JL> news:193719788.20031205152731@w3.org... >> >> >> 6) Encourage SVG implementors to display warnings if they encounter >> >> the old key events stuff. >> >> JL> Everything else I agree with except for this, don't show the users the >> JL> technology... They aren't equipped to do anything with the JL> information. >> >> Designers don't like users seeing error messages. JL> Sure, but requiring that all legacy content need be upgraded so the legacy JL> content can be accessed on the new viewers is a very bad idea, the new JL> viewers will be seen to be at fault not the content. No, the reverse. If there is no message then the viewers that don't implement old broken stuff are seen to be at fault. If there is a message then its clear which content is broken. Remember this isn't 'legacy' as in 'it was previously a standard' but legacy as in 'nonstandard, proprietary extensions, relying on bugs in a particular viewer'. And without an error message, yes, new viewers will be seen to be at fault. So they will be under pressure to reverse engineer bugs etc and the format gets defined by reverse engineering and impenetrable hueristics, not by the spec. See html browsers for where that ends up. The whoole mess of reverse engineered bu-alikes so so frasgile that any forward movement in terms of spec compliance becomes impossible, hence the sorry state of html browsers today that have not improved significantly in three or four years. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2003 08:27:03 UTC