- From: Lauke PH <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:24 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well, I'm glad to see that my two innocent enough posts from yesterday afternoon sparked such a constructive little debate... Matt May wrote: > But your thesis, that browsers do and should refuse to render XHTML > content if it's invalid, is itself invalid. Browsers simply don't do > this, and they never will. A "fatal error" in this context > merely means > it can't be parsed in standards mode, and a browser can claim to be a > Conforming User Agent by dropping from standards mode to quirks mode > when this happens, just like it does with HTML. I can't remember the exact details, but I believe it was Opera 7 which threw a "fatal error" in my face the other day when I was playing with xhtml1.1 sent as application/xhtml+xml...so yes, it does happen. However - as some others have already stated here - I believe that the onus is on the page authors to create their pages and then, at the very least, test them for well-formedness. But yes, as some people on this list will surely point out to me right away, developers doing xhtml at the moment are - for the most part - getting it wrong... well, call me old fashioned, but I don't believe somebody should be doing something if they don't have a clue about it in the first place. Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 05:09:31 UTC