- From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lcrocker@calweb.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
----- Forwarded message from Lee Daniel Crocker ----- From lcrocker Wed Jul 10 18:21:22 1996 Subject: Re: Parsing methods To: murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:21:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <lcrocker@web1.calweb.com> In-Reply-To: <v0211010aae09ffbf5c1a@[140.186.34.50]> from "Murray Altheim" at Jul 10, 96 09:03:21 pm Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1319 > Inconsistent behavior can be much more than an annoyance, it could cost > someone a lot of money, or worse. And even valid markup is not necessarily > what the author intended, but validation usually points out the errors. Absolutely, I'm not arguing again validation in any way. Quite the contrary. Anyone using HTML for mission-critical applications and not validating it is asking for disaster. I want all HTML to be clean and valid, but the reality is that as long as it _can_ be written by humans, it will be, and mistakes will be made. I think it is better for the standard itself to explicitly deal with as many` of those mistakes as it possibly can. > You can't make parsing rules about how to consistently handle inconsistent > content. If the browser developer has to guess as to what broken markup > means, how can anyone be sure that two developers make the same guess? If it's in the standard, they don't have to guess. What I'm saying is that the standard can--and should--clearly specify what a reader should do with certain things it expressly forbids writers from creating. That is not "inconsistent", it's just robust. There is no reason that the standard can't acknowledge the reality of human error in the creation of HTML, and specify the most graceful way to deal with common cases. ----- End of forwarded message from Lee Daniel Crocker -----
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 21:25:49 UTC