Deal with it (was Re: uppercase vs. lower case)

On 1 Mar 99, George Lund wrote:

> By and large, HTML has evolved so that it is backwards/forwards-
> compatible. So, with minor modifications and perhaps the removal of

And by and large, browsers have evolved the same way, leading to bloat 
and bugs.

> certain deprecated or obsolete elements, an HTML 2 document can conform
> to HTML 4.
> 
> With 'XHTML' (so-called), huge numbers of valid HTML 4 documents are no
> longer valid, even though 'XHTML' is supposed to be the same as HTML 4.
> IMO a big mistake was made when XML was formulated, but it is clear that

Tag soup has never been valid, but browsers have dealt with it. For a 
variety of reasons, trying to handle tag soup along with case insensitive 
elements in XML will lead to bigger bloat and more bugs.

Bloat is a big issue. Not everyone is running a 500MHZ Pentium III with 
100-zillion gigs of RAM and disk space and a tabloid size monitor. These 
standards are meant so all sorts of equipment... from palmtop gadgets to 
braile readers to televisions to microwave ovens and even a 286 (which to 
some is a doorstop while others are making productive use of).

Rather than bickering over minor issues like the case of elements, put the 
effort into encouraging browser makers (Navigator, IE, Opera, Lynx, 
Mosaic, etc.) to support the various specifications so developers and users 
can get on with *using* (both reading and writing) the web.

And if one reads the specs closely, they do a good job exlaining the 
rationale behind such restrictions as case sensitivity.

At this point I'd be happy to see a widely used browser that conforms to 
minimum specs (HTML 4, CSS1, ECMA Script, HTTP 1.1) let alone the 
"new" stuff (CSS2, XSL, XML et cetera...).

Rob

Received on Thursday, 4 March 1999 06:55:36 UTC