Re: Error handling: yes, I did mean it
Lauren Wood wrote:
> That's actually not true. Lots of our customers come to us *because*
> we give them correct HTML. Those people who have applications where
> having the wrong data is serious come to us and use our editor.
Those are the same people who will appreciate a) that XMpL (HoTMetaL for
XML?) will be allowed and perhaps required to report errors, and b) that
XMpL does the best it can with the data it is given so that the user
doesn't have to drop back to a text editor. If they wanted to look at
raw markup they wouldn't have bought XMpL.
> I am
> not expecting Joe HomePage to use XML; I think he is well served by
> HTML and has no need for something else. Obviously this doesn't cover
> everyone, and we do get complaints about how strict we are, but
> several customers have praised us for that same thing.
Being strict on export is laudable. Being strict on import is a hassle.
I don't want the spec. to REQUIRE that you cause me a hassle. Nor do I
want it to require Netscape to cause me a hassle when some bozo leaves
out some easily implied quotes. I want it to notify me that he is a
bozo, but let me at the data anyhow. I think that in that scenario