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
