- From: Ben Bucksch <ben.bucksch.news@beonex.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:35:25 +0100
- To: html-w3c <www-html@w3.org>
Frank Tobin wrote: >XML is another story, since *everyone* knows that it has to be >well-formed. There is no second-guessing that that your data *must* >conform to this exectation, or else the onus is on *you* to fix it. With >HTML, the roles are reversed; the onus is on browser makers to cope with >your broken markup :( > >I'm always amazed that HTML got to the horrendous state it did. I'm a >programmer, and you can't get away with bogus syntax in any programmatic >language I know of. > >My feeling is that the more implementations there are of of some part of a >protocol protocol, the more likely it degenerates into HTML-syndrome. > I think... The difference is that XML parsers simply won't accept broken XML. HTML parsers did the fault of trying to "fixup" any errors in the source. Many people just care, if it works, not if it's correct. Let the cases of "it works" approach "It's correct" as much as possible, and you're set, mostly. Ben
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2002 08:39:25 UTC