W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-amaya@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: www.infoworld.com == code breaker

From: P. T. Rourke <ptrourke@mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:34:13 -0400
Message-ID: <000901bfb52e$315f1060$c3843ccf@psicorp.com>
To: "Pierre Fortin" <pfortin@SkyBest.com>, "Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng" <hgs@dmu.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-amaya@w3.org>
I got 86 errors when I ran the Inforworld page through Tidy.

It has sometimes seemed to me that an ideal browser/editor would have a
"tidying" feature that would re-render loaded invalid pages according to a
best approximation of a valid page (with an alert in the status bar),
flagging errors in an optional extra window or file, and allowing the reader
to view the source of the existing page or of the resulting tidied page.
But I expect that this is something the Amaya team doesn't have the time /
personnel resources for (I guess it would have to run the loaded page
through Tidy or some analog first and then parse it into a tree for Amaya to
display and edit; my programming skills are definitely sub-par so I haven't
looked at the source code), so I haven't mentioned it.

P. T. Rourke

Pierre Fortin wrote:
> Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > directly accessing the first frame at
> > > since Amaya only displays basic frame info unless "/pageone.html" is
> > > Once the page displays, it is obviously very different from what
Netscape or
> > > Mozilla present.
> > The W3C validator considers this page to be seriously ill :-) :-
> >
> Thanks for the pointer!
> > The question arises how far the very small Amaya team can go to prevent
> > pathalogical responses to pathalogical input.  Ideally it should not
> > loop forever, but...
> ...but, this raises another question:  should the validator just throw
> or should there be a "proposed/concept" option, or second validator which
> rule-bending into account and helps evaluate future possibilities...?  I'd
> the last to propose a M$-like "embrace and extend" attitude; but standards
> always stop when agreed upon.  Many evolve to new levels...  to wit: HTML
> *4.0*...  But; by all means, flag M$ extensions as strict violations...
> >         Hugh
> >         hgs@dmu.ac.uk
> Pierre
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 14:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:22 UTC