W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2002

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

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:45:13 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B4F7@HQ5>
To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, www-tag@w3.org

If the browser is required to validate on demand, (no, not by writing a 
script that gets the DOM that gets the validation routine, etc, but by a 
simple button press), then the user at least has the option of returning 
the results to the originator. It can even be automated as failure results 
are now for MS systems; the system asks the user for permission to send 
a message to Microsoft concerning the error.  Validation is just one of the 
options for error detection.  That strategy takes advantage of a culture 
in which the user does feedback software problems to vendors.  It is how 
we do business now and there is no reason to think it won't work for the 
web.

I don't think it possible to clean up what's out there without involving 
the customer to vendor loop.  That is where the feedback is going.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

If I believed that changing the messages the validator provided would
have a positive effect, I would suggest it.  However, my real point is
that the browser is the ultimate arbiter of what works, not the
validator.  I don't think any level of improvement to the validator -
except perhaps turning it into a browser - is going to change that.

If you don't modify user-agent behavior, the feedback loop will remain
limp and mostly useless.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 09:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:51 UTC