Re: New issue: error recovery practices (Re: Proposed TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use)

On Saturday, June 1, 2002, 2:46:23 AM, Keith wrote:

>> I have to disagree.  Those kinds of "pain to users" rules are in fact
>> standard practice for XML work pretty much across the board.  

KM> XML users may be different than HTML users.  HTML is mostly written
KM> for eyeballs.  Raise the barrier for XHTML too high, and it won't 
KM> get used as widely as you'd like.

Counter example - SVG. SVG is also written for eyeballs, has clearly
defined error reporting rules that includes of course the XML WF
requirement, and i have not heard a *single* complaint along the lines
of "can we relax things".

On the contrary, people appreciate prompt reporting of error, rather
than merely happening to spot those errors that give an immediate
visual result.

So, no problems with a higher bar in general. For HTML family in
particular, where you are moving an existing content creator base
(people and software) then yes, raise the bar (or indeed, change
anything from the current situation) and it will be widely ignored.
Thats a specific case, though.


Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 10:23:42 UTC