Re: Parsing methods

Jeremy Bailin (
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:31:20 -0400

Message-ID: <>
Date: 	Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:31:20 -0400
From: Jeremy Bailin <>
Subject: Re: Parsing methods

> Absolutely, I'm not arguing again validation in any way.  Quite the
> contrary.  Anyone using HTML for mission-critical applications and
> not validating it is asking for disaster.  I want all HTML to be
> clean and valid, but the reality is that as long as it _can_ be
> written by humans, it will be, and mistakes will be made.  I think
> it is better for the standard itself to explicitly deal with as many`
> of those mistakes as it possibly can.

The problem is that humans are lazy. If you're hand-coding something, and you 
know you can get away with certain constructs, and that every browser will 
understand those constructs, you're likely to use them. Ditto if you're writing 
something that outputs HTML. In any case, if the browsers' behaviour is erratic 
in the face of invalid HTML, it has no implied validity. If the browsers' 
behaviour is consistent and uniform across browsers, there is an implied 
validity to what really should be an invalid construct.
 /   "While I may be strange,    \  Jeremy Bailin
| I don't think that I am misled" |
 \_________- Amy Schrecengost____/
Shad: 92B, SVP111, S/T SIG.  UofT: Astro/Phys, CS.
Outpourings courtesy of "The Midnight Bomber" in MCMXCVI