LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG  February 1996

HTML-WG February 1996

Subject:

Re: Flag error conditions!

From:

[log in to unmask] (Murray Altheim)

Date:

Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:18:48 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)


Ka-Ping Yee <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>I think all of you who have been making comments in this thread have
>made some very worthwhile points, and i appreciate being challenged
>to rethink what i proposed.
[...]
>Murray Altheim wrote:
>: But specifying browser error handling behaviour is quite beyond the
>: bounds of either the HTML specification or this working group.
>
>I'm not by any means suggesting we take this to any level of
>detail.  This is not supposed to be a detailed specification of
>behaviour -- it only goes as far as to say there must *exist*
>an error indicator.  In much the same way we say there must *exist*
>rendering, though we don't specify how.  (Not much, anyway.)

I guess I was not clear enough. It's not a matter of what level of detail.
Specifying error behavior is beyond the scope of either the spec or the
HTML working group. You'll note that RFC 1866 _recommends_ informing the
user of errors. That is as far as it goes; it is a markup language
specification. There is also a big difference between 'should' and 'must'.

Required application conventions apply to rendering behavior, for example:
EM must be somehow emphasized from body text, but the method of emphasis is
left unspecified. I think the analogy of a rendering requirement is
invalid. The same argument would also say there must *exist* a display or
presentation device. Application conventions apply to UA implementation of
language constructs as an SGML _language application_, not the methods by
which a _software application_ implements the language. The scope of the
specification and the working group is the HTML language, not the UA
implementation of that language.

I don't disagree with your intent, but this is just the wrong forum. The
scope is stated succinctly in the IETF HTML working group charter[1].

Murray

[1] http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/html-charter.html

______________________________________________________
    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email:  [log in to unmask]
    http:   http://www.stonehand.com/murray/murray.htm





Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager