- From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:55:38 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
> From: Daniel Acton [SMTP:dacton@itouch.co.za] > > But it shouldn't be this way, and isn't this why we have such a wonderful > body like the w3c, defining standards that manufacturers, and definitely > coders should stick to. > [DJW:] Two problems here: 1) The "web" has internet origins, and there is a fundamental internet guideline that says: "Be correct in what you produce; be tolerant in what you accept" 2) The general public doesn't know what is correct behaviour, and will consider a browser that fails to behave like another one on invalid input to be broken, that results in: - costs asssociated with support calls; - consumers switching to the more tolerant browser. The consequence is a war to be more tolerant than the competition. (Note that Netscape 4 is very tolerant of some errors.) The first principle would apply to authoring tools, but providing the big 2 work (or just your own product) there is no pressure to use coders who understand HTML; authors who understand HTML tend to hand code, anyway. > "standard-conforming" interpreters, thus producing the _same_ output from > one piece of code. > [DJW:] Standards conforming browsers are most definitely not required to produce the same output from the same HTML. With a fully specified style sheet, they may be expected to produce quite similar output, but, for example, a Unix product will produce completely different looking list boxes from a Windows one (this happens within the Netscape family). There is commercial pressure for this, but the real solution is an authoring language designed for the wants of commercial authors. -- --------------------------- DISCLAIMER --------------------------------- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS. >
Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 06:56:04 UTC