The robustness principle is about handling faulty behaviours and not about implementing not-defined/non-standard things just to be compatible with other vendors.
However if another vendor uses something non/not-defined one should take care of the corner-case and not let the running code result in an unexpected crash. So even if Netscape didn't implemented the marquee-tag it actually rendered HTML containing it without crashing or doing something unexpected. So if the kernel gets a bug in the sysfs that gives us a number atoi() cannot handle we will represent it incorrectly. Better to use the built-in error handling instead. //Markus Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device Original Message From: mcon...@intellitree.com Sent: July 9, 2020 23:01 To: busybox@busybox.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] lsscsi: code shrink and refactor On 7/9/2020 3:16 PM, Markus Gothe wrote: > Jon Postel formulated the robustness principle decades ago. Still > today it is a good advice to "be liberal in what you accept and strict > in what you send". Counterexample: Internet Explorer It allowed so much garbage to render correctly that other browser vendors had to work overtime to accept all the same garbage and make sure it rendered in the same way. Then, subsequently when IE was no longer defining the standard, progress was hamstrung by needing to be compatible with its own past allowances lest they be accused of breaking people intranets. So much so that they just weren't able to fix most of their bugs and eventually abandoned the project. If they had just declared tighter standards and enforced the rules, web development might not have been a misery for an entire decade. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox