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

> 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".

okay, but SVG isn't nearly as widely used as HTML, nor presumably,
as widely used as XHTML would be.

I think there's something about the sheer number of different people 
generating a kind of content that affects the variability of content,
including the liklihood of generating errors.

Still, I have no problem with raising the bar - my main point is that
if you're going to complain about errors then you need to arrange for
those complaints to go to somewhere that is useful.  Having browsers
complain about errors to the user only helps if the developer uses
that particular browser to test the content.  Having the browser 
complain about errors to the origin server essentially allows the
content-provider to do continuous quality monitoring.  Of course, the
two approaches aren't mutually exclusive.


Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 11:38:45 UTC