W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

(no subject)

From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:43:18 +0000
Message-Id: <200112291341.fBTDfLH20945@post.cnt.ru>
To: "Harry Woodrow" <harrry@email.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Saturday 29 December 2001 09:20, Harry Woodrow wrote:
|   The fact that IE does not crash is correct behavior.
|   Browsers should forgive the mistakes of the page writer after all the
| user didnt make them and presumably the author did try to convey
| information.. On the other hand authoring tools should not allow you to
| make bad code. A BMW car has an extremely good ABS system to make up for

What a nice message! :-)
I really LOVE this list! :-))

... And highly appreciate the fact that we finally switched from browsers 
(hell-knows-what-inside-it?) to cars (which have engine, wheels, body and a 
lot of other interesting stuff).

Anyway, I hardly believe you can compare MS IE to BMW - MS IE is much more 
close to FIAT or Daewoo, which are good cars, but not luxurious.
And Mozilla reminds me Ford F-series pickup - it does its job but car is 
heavy enermously and fuel consumption can kill almost every budget.

| the driver's braking mistakes,it does not crash if the driver makes a minor
| mistake, this does not mean that the driver should drive badly.
|   If you want browsers to crash on bad input do you also want cars to? 
| :)))))

I think you misunderstood me.
I wrote "MS IE bombs you on broken (not well-formed) XML" - there is nothing 
said about crash.
You can check - try to render broken XML in MS IE, it will just display you 
"error processing blah-blah-blah". I attached small example (good+bad XML) 
for your reference.

And, as we started comparision to cars:
Do you know that some cars in Japan *reject* to start engine when driver is 
completely drunk? So, what's bad when good browser rejects to render broken 
content? (replace it with good one, pleeaaase...) 

|
|   Harry Woodrow
|
|
|   -----Original Message-----
|   From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
|   Behalf Of Vadim Plessky
|   Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2001 5:45 PM
|   To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
|   Subject: Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities
|
[...]
|
|   |   HTML) and tolerant in what you accept (browsers should work with
|   | broken HTML).
|
|   Hopefully, even MS IE bombs you on broken (not well-formed) XML.
|   So, the real chance for all of us to come away from "broken content" is
| to accelerate transition to XML (not XHTML, which is *again* intermediary
| solution!) and sacrifice all HTML 4.0, 3.2, etc.
|   So, I would love to see "XML support" in "Minimal Browser Capabilities",
| and all browsers not supporting XML falling into "non-conforming" category
| :-))

-- 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
KDE mini-Themes
http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/




Received on Saturday, 29 December 2001 08:42:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT