W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 1998

Re: Browser compatibility with implementation bugs

From: Victoria Rosenfeld <jiggy@holly.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:24:14 -0600 (MDT)
To: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
cc: Stephanos Piperoglou <sp249@cam.ac.uk>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95.980519151521.192292B-100000@holly.ColoState.EDU>

Uh, ok, as the voice of John & Joan Anybody, who *gives* a crap(!) about
things being SGML compliant. Oh, you "real" authors can bandy it about all
day long, and ... sooo ... I've been a "real" author for enough years,
sites, companies that I feel like I "count" in the elitist use of the

Hey, great. People are pushing the edge of what can be done, but if you
ain't pushinthe edge, it doesn't make you invalid. Get over yourselves.

why not take a quick, very cursory poll and see how much the rest of the
world cares about SGML compliancy ... that is the world outside of Clan

Hey, I got an idea let's make the web so complex that it'll only be used
for commerce only & no one without a CIS degree will be able to do
anything of any meaning on it. Yeah. That's what it's all about. That's
why people are on the web so much.

In your lust for further complexity, you are killing your livelyhood. I'm
tellin' ya' make it too confusing and people *will* stop (QWERTY, Win95,
VHS, and on ...) and go to a simpler, cheaper, easier alternative. 


On Tue, 19 May 1998, Ian Hickson wrote:

> >I don't think [inferring the DTD] is a good idea. In the matter of bugward
> >compatibility I think the best thing to do is to simply check the DTD. If
> >it's non-existant, enable bug compatibility mode. If it's existant, disable
> >it.
> Yes! A much better idea! Which leads to the compromise solution of:
> (o) Use Backwards Compatible 'Tag Soup' Parsing when there
>     is no valid DOCTYPE, use Strict SGML parsing otherwise.
> ( ) Always use Backwards Compatible 'Tag Soup' Parsing.
> ( ) Always use Strict SGML parsing (complain when no DTD)
>     Stop parsing when encountering invalid markup.
> The cool thing is that 'strict' mode automatically excludes MARQUEE, and
> immediately points out missing ALT attributes to all these budding web
> authors. Of course, it also means that IE5 must be DTD/SGML-aware. [1]
> >Since bug compatibility will mostly be added checks (no space without a
> ></P>, allow improperly nested lists and so on),
> _Added_ checks? Don't you think IE4 does enough coping with errors as it is?
> <GRIN!>
> >I'm confident that if Microsoft came up with a version of Internet Explorer
> >that truly, faithfully, completely followed a *specific* standard (and not
> >"parts of HTML 4.0", meaning not even proper HTML 2.0), you'd be seeing
> >little "best viewed with IE" buttons all over the Web in a matter of days.
> There's enough of those already!! (Never understood why people advertise,
> for free, other people's products on their pages. Where's the logic? "Hi.
> I'm glad you want to buy my produce. First, I suggest you go to this shop
> across the road and buy their product." Doesn't make sense.)
> However, yes, you're right. That's the whole point: make it undesirable to
> the authors to write invalid markup.
> >What every author of Web pages wants these days is the ability to go to
> >the W3C's web site, print a copy of the latest recommendation (or the
> >latest recommendation he knows is implemented) and be able to code to
> >that, without testing it against any browser or looking up any other
> >recommendation.
> Well, what 'real' authors want, anyway. Those that don't touch MARQUEE,
> LAYER and 'display: line' [2]...
> In fact, this is what I do already. I'm in the process of converting my
> entire site to HTML4 STRICT + CSS2 + WAI. I've already come across two
> problems by doing this, too (no lang attr on HR, height/width deprecation
> oddity).
> So Chris! Is all this going to happen?
> (IE5? IE6? Mozilla people: N5? N6?)
> [1] And might even implement all the <[[CDATA stuff which SGML allows...
> [2] an emacs/w3 extention. I thought I'd better be fair :-)
> --
> Ian Hickson
> Version: 3.12   Info: www.geekcode.com
> GIT/M/S d->-- s+: a--->? C++(+++)>$ U>*++++ P L+>+++++ E(+)>+++ W+++ N(+) o?
> K? w@ O- !M V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP>+ t 5+++>++++ X- R+(+++) tv b++(+++) DI++
> D++(---)>++++ G>+++ e(*)>+++++ h!()(--) !r y?
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 17:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:47 UTC