- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:56:31 -0800
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Ian wrote: >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: >> >> * I am against mandated rules error handling (and instead leave error >> handling to the UA, as Jim suggests) if the spec and implementation >> become complex. >> >> In other words, if it qualifies as KISS, then mandate interoperable >> error handling behavior; otherwise, tell content implementers and >> content developers that error handling is UA dependent. >That's not an argument against mandatory error handling, it's an >argument against complex specs. Ian, No, it is an argument against mandating complex error handling rules within specifications. What I am saying is that it is OK to mandate simple error handling rules (e.g., mandating CSS's rules that unsupported properties or supported values for properties result acting as if the property assignment had not been made, or mandating that UAs bail if they encounter non-well-formed XML) but that we should avoid mandating complex error handling rules (e.g., specifying highly specific error notification and recovery behavior when a UA must do if an animation element contains a 'values' array where one entry in the array is incorrect but the others are correct). Because SVG has a complex processing model (e.g., scripting, event handling, SMIL timing and synchronization model, property inheritance, compositing), due to the complex interactions, it is infeasible to attempt to define fine-grain error handling and recovery behavior for every possible scenario, whereas it is indeed feasible to define simplistic error handling rules, such as "highly perceivable indication of error" whenever the content is "in error", where UAs are provided latitude in how exactly they provide the indication of error. Jon
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 16:55:46 UTC