W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 1999

Re: an official W3C browser test

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:54:39 -0500
Message-ID: <000701be3ccf$708df180$22acdccf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Inanis Brooke" <alatus@earthlink.net>, "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>, "Gordon Worley" <redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net>
> Don't worry too much about backwards compatiability.  A browser
>that forced Web designers to code their pages *correctly* would be a good
>idea.  Programmers can't write code that includes features that were
>removed from the language they are using, why should this be different for
>HTML.

the new HTML as XML is very strict. XML is draconian in their enforcement of
correct coding techniques.

The browser makers though will probably build in a 'fudge' engine for files
sent with an HTML mime.


----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Worley <redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net>
To: Inanis Brooke <alatus@earthlink.net>; www-html <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: an official W3C browser test


>Inanis Brooke wrote:
>
>>The problem we'd face here is making sure that it's backward compatible
with
>>previous HTML versions... Now, a decision has to be made then as well:
would
>
> Don't worry too much about backwards compatiability.  A browser
>that forced Web designers to code their pages *correctly* would be a good
>idea.  Programmers can't write code that includes features that were
>removed from the language they are using, why should this be different for
>HTML.
>
>>the test suite test support for bad HTML code that runs rampant on the
'net,
>>or do we "force" webmasters out there to clean up their code? (I'm pretty
>
> Encouraging bad code would be a mistake.  The issue of backwards
>compatiability should be left up the the browser makers, as well as the
>issue of messy code.  Also, the messy code created by WYSISYG development
>tools needs to be curbed, making this an excellent oppertunity to do so.
>If browser makers find it easier to support the standard than messy code,
>hand coders like myself could become a hot commodity for six to twelve
>months.  Of course, the advancement of HTML development tools is tangent on
>the browser makers conformance.
>
>>done, and let them write in their OWN support for sloppy HTML (since I
think
>>they did that in the first place.
>
> The W3C is a standards body and should not be concerned with
>non-standard (or rather recomended in the case of HTML) versions of the
>standard.  Why should anything change now that we're trying to enforce the
>recomendations and standards?
>
>________________________________________
>Red Bird Island Productions
>Gordon Worley
>http://www.crosswinds.net/orlando/~redbird/
>mailto:redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 January 1999 14:28:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:38 GMT