- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 05:40:24 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > So I disagree with Jim's original bottom line: > > Jim Ley wrote: > > Just define what an error is, and leave the rest to the UA. Vote for > > less work! > > In fact, failing to specify error recovery behavior can ultimately > create more work for implementors, not less. It's also more work for the content developers, because they will write non-conformant markup (guarenteed), and then wonder why it acts differently in each browser, instead of writing non-conformant marker and getting the same behaviour in all browsers. And finally it's more work for the spec authors, because as soon as they decide to make their spec actually useful to implementors and content authors, they'll have to describe error handling, at which time they have to go and reverse engineer all the UAs, coming up with test cases for all the obscure cases, and end up having to document all the crazy de facto error handling rules (which are always much more insane than any error handling rules that one would get through forward planning). In conclusion, it's more work for everyone, on the long term. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 2 January 2006 05:40:41 UTC