On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
However, what seems to be more likely is that one tool refuses to
fetch
the file (because the URI parser didn't like it), while in the other
case, the tool puts the invalid URL on to the wire
IMHO this is basically the definition of a standards failure.
I think this is totally ok
I think considering this behaviour to be ok is basically ignoring 19
years
of experience with the Web which has shown repeatedly and at huge cost
that having different tools act differently in the same situation is
a bad
idea and only causes end users to have a bad experience.
If the consequence of this is that invalid URLs do not interoperate,
then I think this is a *feature*, not a bug.
I fundamentally disagree. Users don't care what the source of a lack
of
interoperability is. Whether it's an engineering error or a flaw in
the
standard or a flaw in the content is irrelevant, the result is the
same:
an unhappy user.
I largely agree with Ian's perspective on this. The primary purpose of
standards is to enable interoperability, therefore failure to
interoperate is by definition a standards failure (either in the
design of the standard or in correct implementation of the standard).
Regards,
Maciej
