- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:30:35 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-Id: <0A4F1318-A815-11D7-B431-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>
People with any sort of typing/physical/cognitive disorder will have problems generating error free code. to view their pages one may need an html browser and low spec'd embedded devices don't have the space for lots of error correction. if your users are known to rely on these then xhtml may be the only way to provide content with embedded systems, it may be appropriate, children don't play with matches. however there seems little reason to forbid attempted expressions of poor xhtml, given suitable kit. The concept may itself be erroneous, as different UA display content differently, even though well formed. validators are known to be imperfect, and graphical renditions may well point up errors as well, in given circumstances. for instance, they very quickly tell one what was the last image rendered correctly in SVG. I code SVG by hand, but still prefer "to error check code visually, only finally validating, when believed to be 'done' one might not want to do this on a mobile phone though :-) damn where is that missing quote? Jonathan > A general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be > liberal in what you accept from others. > > Under this principle, validators and programs that produce code should > be as conservative as possible; user agents, since they accept code, > should be as liberal as possible.
Attachments
- text/enriched attachment: stored
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 16:26:59 UTC