On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Adam Roben wrote:
Darin Adler wrote:On Oct 12, 2007, at 6:11 AM, Adam Roben wrote:It may be worth stating in this section what the behavior is when a section or opportunistic caching namespace appears multiple times. The parsing algorithm makes this clear, but it would be clearer still to also state the behavior in this section.Well, that would be non-conforming. I'm not sure we want to tell authors what the error handling behaviour is when they ignore the conformance requirements... do we?I see. I was not looking at this part of the spec from an application author's perspective. In light of that, I think the current level of detail is appropriate.Our experience with HTML has taught us that authors don't necessarily read the specifications nor conform. The behavior of web browsers when application authors ignore conformance requirements may be quite important to compatibility in practice; if it's not specified then the applications end up relying on the behavior of the implementation they test with.So I think it's worth considering being explicit about the error handling. Not necessarily "for the authors", but for the benefit of the web browser implementers.The error handling behavior is explicit in the parsing algorithm. Perhaps it's not explicit as you would like, though?
OK. Sorry, I misunderstood.
-- Darin
