Re: Support Existing Content


This thread may have confused with anther one because of the use of
some analogies.  The point I was trying to make was that I don't think
I agree with draconian error handling in the context of the public
web.  I was not discussing semantics of the HTML language here, though
I have been trying to watch that thread also.

The idea of playfully attacking your grammar was only to show that
none of us are perfect - forcing draconian error handling on the
public web (as opposed to best effort processing of non-conforming
content) will probably prevent people from communicating on the web as
effectively as they do today.

>  Feel free to snip at my grammar instead of addressing the point.

Tina, that was EXACTLY my point, actually!  If I had ignored your
grammar error it would have made communication better in this
instance.  Because I failed to get past your grammar error, you became

Again, my points were only in the context of draconian error handling
and best effort processing of older/nonconformant content.  I was not
addressing adding new/better semantic markup.


On 5/4/07, Tina Holmboe <> wrote:
> On  4 May, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> >>   Personally I'd rather have one well-written book in grammatically
> >>   correct English than a thousand and one I couldn't make heads or
> >>   tail of.
> >
> > Your sentence ends in a preposition.  Yoink!
> >
> > Still think exacting, proper grammar makes communication easier?  :)
>   I'd love for you to refer me to the place where I claimed to be able
>   to write 100% grammatically correct English?
>   Yes. I do still think that even if /I/ am not perfect.
>   Feel free to snip at my grammar instead of addressing the point.
> > Anyway, I never said said option a) would include books that of which
> > you couldn't make heads or tails.  I only said they would include
> > "some grammatical errors", clearly my mind can still understand what
> > you're trying to say despite any grammatical errors.
>   Let's conclude that you are smarter than the average web-browser. My
>   compliments. Sadly UAs are dumb as bricks, and need a little bit of
>   help in order to present information to people who, surprisingly
>   perhaps, isn't accessing it quite the way imagined by the author.
>   In other words: elements with semantic interpretation is /essential/
>   for communication on the web because the web isn't as smart as people.
>   Usually.
>   One day we may have a browser who can distinguish<i>Lynx</i> from
>   <i>Lynx</i> and tell us that the latter is a browser's name written in
>   italics, and the former is the genus Lynx, but right now we don't
>   /have/ that capability.
>   Yoink.
> --
>  -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
>         +46 708 557 905

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 18:42:39 UTC