Re: Client Compliance

Frederic Janssens (fjanss@iridia0.ulb.ac.be)
Fri, 26 Aug 94 14:40:00 +0200


W3O could be the "somewhere prominent" where browser authors, and server
authors, could post their "specs".
Perhaps using WIT users could send in their remarks regarding effective
compliance.
What be usefull, but would require some work by "motivated individuals",
would be to define (and maintain?) a standard format for the
"specs/compliance list" to be directly usable by browsers and servers.

Frederic

> From www-talk@www0.cern.ch Thu Aug 25 21:23 MET 1994
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 21:19:59 +0200
> Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
> From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
> Subject: Re: Client Compliance
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>
> In message <8317.199408251852@discovery.brad.ac.uk>, "Mark Cox" writes:
> >
> >What we ought to start then is a definative compliance list! Hopefully
> >when clients as popular as "WinMosaic" see they are fairly low in
> >the table they will be motivated to improve!
> >
> >| 3. We need a way for users to know which client to choose to
> >| depending on independent conformance testing.
> >
> >Which does imply that we have standards that everyone adheres too - the
> >Location/URI http header stuff is all to common. Is this a function
> >of the new W3O?
>
> Eventually, perhaps yes.
>
> But I personally prefer the Linux development model: a motivated
> individual senses a need, and takes the initiative. If thier specialty
> is technical, they write the code. If they're effective communicators,
> the write doc. If they're good organizers, they coordinate the effort.
>
> The WWW is much the same. Folks that see a need march forward and fill
> it.
>
> Your choice is to wait until commercial entities fill the void. If you
> wait for that, you deserve what you get. :-{
>
> Building this information infrastructure is a huge project. I suspect
> W3O will have its hands full just coordinating things. Progress and
> functionality enhancements will remain the responsibility of the community
> at large for some time to come.
>
> Dan


> From www-talk@www0.cern.ch Thu Aug 25 23:46 MET 1994
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 19:38:46 +0200
> Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
> From: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
> Subject: Re: Client Compliance
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>
>
> > We need some sort of "Compliance Test".
>
> Absolutely. But until there is a rigid standard it is difficult to
> comply with it. When the standards arrive I'm sure companies will
> start quoting compliance, which one can test.
>
> > The Compliance level should be sent from the client along with the
> > standard User-Agent field. "Hi, I'm XYZZYBrowser version 2.2, I can
> > handle forms as long as they are not Posted to authenticated areas
> > and I use the file extension instead of the mime type for working
> > out inline images apart from that I'm compliant with HTTP X.Y and
> > HTML Z.X"
>
> That's a complete waste of bytes, IMHO. One can use the User-agent
> string to index a list describing compliance; there is no point
> sending it with every request. Besides, there is no way to add
> to the User-agent once it's fielded, so how usful would it be
> when new bugs are found?
>
> > You might think that clients would at least get "User-Agent" right,
> > its amazing how many dont...

> > You could argue that the User-Agent field isn't very important. But
> > so many clients are not fully-compliant with the standards - it's
> > useful to be able to tell a user of an interactive service if their
> > client will work at all. How? The only way is for me to have
> > a huge table of clients with reasons for them not being able to
> > handle the service
>
> Sure, what's so bad about that? Make that table available somewhere
> prominent so others can use it...

> > 2. Some of the problems are due to bugs in the clients and
> > I'm not blaming either the protocol writers or the browser
> > authors; we need a way of the server knowing!
>
> You want to build knowledge of every protocol bug in a client
> into the server? I certainly don't...
>
> 3. We need a way for users to know which client to choose to
> depending on independent conformance testing.
>
> -- Martijn
> __________
> Internet: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
> X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
> X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster
> WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html
>