- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:38:08 +0100
- To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- CC: 'Jonas Sicking' <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, 'Dean Edridge' <dean@dean.org.nz>, 'public-html' <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Justin James wrote: > I agree with the idea that defining error handling (especially one which > tries to Perl-ishly "do what you mean, not what you say") does encourage > "bad behavior". At the same time, differences in error handling amongst > browsers are a major source of the Web's issues. Why? Because, despite its > grammatical simplicity, HTML is apparently so difficult to produce that only > a small minority of HTML documents are valid. Therefore, in this case, I > believe that defining error handling so that broken pages break the same > across browsers is a better choice than having authors cranking out bad code > ... The issue is that broken pages do not "break the same way on all browsers", but that they do not appear to be broken at all, so authors never notice. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2008 14:38:57 UTC