[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> My point being, unless *everybody* is accepting the same kind of
broken
> requests, interoperability will actually be *worse*. But if indeed
> everybody *is* accepting the same requests, it would have made more
sense
Well, I understand the point that Tim makes WRT HTML -- you're not doing
the client any favors by accepting his buggy input, since it's bound to
cause him grief later on. The computing equivalent of "a *real* friend
would have told me about the kool-aid stains on my shirt!"
But it seems you are making a different point. I am saying that WebDAV
interop issues were not caused by any noble attempts to be "liberal",
but rather by broken code. You seem to be responding that "yes, it was
buggy for the big guy, but then everyone else had to follow suit and be
liberal to achieve interop". I can understand this much, but what is
the conclusion we should draw from this? What is the relevance to the
debate about draconian XML processing rules?
Are you suggesting that the smaller vendors would have been *better* to
be draconian? At first glance, this seems like an issue of "the big guy
creates defacto standards" rather than something directly related to
Postel's law. What am I missing?
|
