- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:19:08 +0000
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk:
> +1 and yet ...
>
> Wearing one of my hats: art of management is just a talent
> of creation systems of motivations for your subordinates.
> (do not remember where I read this statement)
>
> I mean that if UAs were strict enough in this subject and show
> "Invalid document" instead of making attempts of rendering it we
> would live with better content.
The world wasn't ready for that when HTML "woke up". It's arguably still having issues working with it for XML.
> Or at least some sort of "shame on you" watermark, huh?
Sure, that makes the website look "dumb" but how does that help the user get a reasonable and useful print result?
> In the same way as browsers visualize broken certificate now.
> Authors would be motivated to produce something reliable...
> Too extreme?
Much of the web still flags bad or expired certificates; shame hasn't been enough of a motivator. People often just complain about the messenger/informer ("Why are you asking me questions? Just render!") because web site authoring perfection isn't the user's priority much (most?) of the time.
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 05:19:38 UTC