RE: Shaming compaines into improving their HTML

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

[KB] BTW, I don't agree with the common assumption that it would be a
[KB] -good thing- if user agents started breaking horribly (e.g. like
[KB] an XML parser encountering unwell-formed markup).  In fact, I think
[KB] this would be a very bad thing.

To which Björn Höhrmann replied:

[BH] Why?

Because the market would reject such software.  I use Opera, and I like the
fact that
it is more standards-compliant than any other browser I've seen.  However,
when it is unable to render a page _from_which_I_need_information_, I must
use a different browser.

Opera's JavaScript engine used to be pedantic about demanding the
declaration of variables.  A lot of (poorly designed) sites used JavaScript
which didn't declare variables, and Opera would refuse to execute the
script.  If I needed the information the site provided, I was forced to use
a different browser.  That hurt Opera, and now its JavaScript engine
silently executes such flawed code, and I don't need to change browsers for
those sites.

As an analogy, I happen to think that imperial measurement is ridiculous in
the 21st century, and that the U.S. should follow the rest of the world in
adopting metric.  However, if I want to drive on U.S. highways, I have to
understand miles -- even if they're non-standard.  I could just leave the
States and stick to driving in countries that follow international
standards, but the U.S. has content I want access to.  Just like the N.Y.
Times Web site has content I want access to (news), even though it's
(IMNSHO) a hideously designed site that uses _really_ ugly (and wildly
invalid) code.

--

Thanasis Kinias
Information Dissemination Team, Information Technology
Arizona State University
Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A.

Qui nos rodunt confundantur
et cum iustis non scribantur.