W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Missing attribute in a <script> element (Was: Re: [VE][127] Add Subject Here)

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:17:45 +0100
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <3A5B03D4-E3CD-41EA-994F-F46163E73B11@dorward.me.uk>
To: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>

On 13 Jun 2008, at 14:58, Sierk Bornemann wrote:
> Am 13.06.2008 um 15:31 schrieb David Dorward:
>> Nice theory, in practise they will blame the site, not their  
>> browser (which many users can't upgrade anyway) and go to a one of  
>> my rivals instead.
>
> Not, if you find some declaring words, that if the user would use  
> aonother brother, the experience of surfing your site would be a  
> little more brighter and better than surfing it with IE. :-)

The vast majority of users would react to that with "What's IE? I just  
click the blue Internet button", "Well it works, so I'm not going to  
put any effort into changing." or "I can't change browser".

> No webstandard which has ever been published by the W3C or other  
> standards bodies, demands, that web content has to be pixel-true  
> beyond browsers. Accessibility has to be assured, yes. But nobody  
> hinders you as a website owner to make your site so, that all major  
> browsers do have access to it, but only the modern and widely  
> webstandards-capable browers are able to give the user the full  
> experience and the full glance and shining achivable with modern  
> webstandards and a browser which is capable of them. If you use the  
> IE on such a website, then you can access all relevant information.  
> And you see it, let's say, on a medium level of optical and haptical  
> experience. But not more. And if you use a modern webbrowser, than  
> you can access the same content on a higher level with brighter  
> shining, with more fun. The whole mechanism of the WWW does play to  
> these rules, and they are literally defined in that direction in the  
> W3C Specs: scaling. Why so long bowing down and make exceptions to  
> these rules to one product of mainly one particular browser vendor?

Because about 80% of customers use it. That's four out of five  
visitors. Or "a vast majority".

The ONLY practical difference between type="application/javascript"  
and type="text/javascript", which is what started this off, is that IE  
will ignore script elements using the former.

Why lock them out? It just makes me look bad in their eyes.

> Analogue in real life: if you use the freeway, than all vehicels  
> using that also have to play to all the same rules, you even have to  
> have a minimum speed to use it. Vehicles, not able to reach this  
> minimum speed, are not permitted to use this freeway. Above this  
> minimum speed all vehicles are allowed, no exception for one  
> particular vehicle.

If 80% of people drove cars that couldn't go above 50mph, then the  
minimum speed on the road wouldn't be set at 60mph. (I pull these  
figures out of the air, I know very little about speed limits in any  
country that has 'freeways').

> Back to the topic: so why lowering *all* rules and all needs to one  
> particular vendor, when choice for e better product is there and  
> choice is reasonable for the customer and user?

Scripts marked up as application/javascript aren't better in any case,  
its just more consistent with other specs.

Client side XHTML is only better for a few edge cases, which most  
people don't so much as drift near.

> In practise, no user, no custumer will blame your site, if you  
> *explain* him, that he would de better, if he would use another, a  
> better product

Would that it were so.

> and that he would furthermore eventually save time and money

That's debatable at best.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 14:18:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:29 GMT