- From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:43:18 +0000
- To: "Harry Woodrow" <harrry@email.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200112291341.fBTDfLH20945@post.cnt.ru>
On Saturday 29 December 2001 09:20, Harry Woodrow wrote: | The fact that IE does not crash is correct behavior. | Browsers should forgive the mistakes of the page writer after all the | user didnt make them and presumably the author did try to convey | information.. On the other hand authoring tools should not allow you to | make bad code. A BMW car has an extremely good ABS system to make up for What a nice message! :-) I really LOVE this list! :-)) ... And highly appreciate the fact that we finally switched from browsers (hell-knows-what-inside-it?) to cars (which have engine, wheels, body and a lot of other interesting stuff). Anyway, I hardly believe you can compare MS IE to BMW - MS IE is much more close to FIAT or Daewoo, which are good cars, but not luxurious. And Mozilla reminds me Ford F-series pickup - it does its job but car is heavy enermously and fuel consumption can kill almost every budget. | the driver's braking mistakes,it does not crash if the driver makes a minor | mistake, this does not mean that the driver should drive badly. | If you want browsers to crash on bad input do you also want cars to? | :))))) I think you misunderstood me. I wrote "MS IE bombs you on broken (not well-formed) XML" - there is nothing said about crash. You can check - try to render broken XML in MS IE, it will just display you "error processing blah-blah-blah". I attached small example (good+bad XML) for your reference. And, as we started comparision to cars: Do you know that some cars in Japan *reject* to start engine when driver is completely drunk? So, what's bad when good browser rejects to render broken content? (replace it with good one, pleeaaase...) | | Harry Woodrow | | | -----Original Message----- | From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On | Behalf Of Vadim Plessky | Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2001 5:45 PM | To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org | Subject: Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities | [...] | | | HTML) and tolerant in what you accept (browsers should work with | | broken HTML). | | Hopefully, even MS IE bombs you on broken (not well-formed) XML. | So, the real chance for all of us to come away from "broken content" is | to accelerate transition to XML (not XHTML, which is *again* intermediary | solution!) and sacrifice all HTML 4.0, 3.2, etc. | So, I would love to see "XML support" in "Minimal Browser Capabilities", | and all browsers not supporting XML falling into "non-conforming" category | :-)) -- Vadim Plessky http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/
Attachments
- text/xml attachment: good
- text/xml attachment: table-xml-demo-bad.xml
- text/plain attachment: xstyle.css
- text/plain attachment: xstyle-bad.css
Received on Saturday, 29 December 2001 08:42:01 UTC