- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:46:11 +0200
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012-09-25 16:14, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > > On 9/25/2012 9:27 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: >> >> I believe that the idea is that once the rules that describe >> processing as >> it happens are written down, you write test suites that can prove >> conformance. This does tend to have a strong effect, particularly if >> coupled with rules about processing erroneous input. > > Well, half of the HTML5 spec is devoted to documenting cases where > individual browsers were liberal, the conformance suites (like the W3C > validator) were not used by producers, the invalid data on the wire > became commonplace, and now the specification is complicated by the need > to support the union of all these deviations. > >> Well-defined error handling that produces something predictable (rather >> than blow up) is actually a modern and more pragmatic reformulation of >> Postel, IMHO. > > My concern is not with well-defined error handling; it's with not > putting equal emphasis on inducing producers to cleanup their act too. Also coming up with definitions of syntax and algorithms (such as reference resolution) which is *slightly* different from RFC 3986, and also the introduction of unnecessary scheme-specific special-casing (such as fragid handling of data URIs, which is broken in Webkit and Opera, but works correctly in Firefox). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:49:46 UTC