- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 23:04:44 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG List <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > Following that, the spec should make any UA that makes an audited > > > link indistinguishable from a regular link non-conforming. > > > > That is already the case (unless the implementor knows of "valid > > reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is > > acceptable or even useful", noting that "the full implications should > > be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing"). > > Yes. But that doesn't include reasons like > > - we couldn't figure out a UI that doesn't get into the way, or > > - if it doesn't behave like a regular link, click-through rates will go > down > > right? I don't think RFC2119 gives guidance on exactly what consists a "valid reason", but I agree with you that those would be poor reasons. > > Presumably, such user interface details would (like all user interface > > details) be left up to the user agent. > > So let's assume one year goes by and we have several UAs shpping with > "ping" support, none of them implementing the "should". > > Would you consider the feature a failure then and remove it? Certainly the feature would have to be revisited -- anything that fails to get implemented should be revisited. I couldn't hypothetise about what we would do in this particular case, it would depend on the exact situation. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 23:04:58 UTC