> Although looking at the bigger picture... How bad would it be to demand
> more compliant HTML from ValidateRM users? After all, it's a little bit
> like having "use strict;".
It's certainly a best practice to have valid XHTML, but it may not always be
the case, especially in development, or consider an application that has legacy
HTML, but you want to switch the backend to use better tools, like ValidateRM.
Dynamic pages can be particularly tricky to make perfectly compliant, as
different variations of HTML may be pushed out depending on the query.
I definitely vote for continuing on in the spirit of HTML::Parser and allowing
for "real world" HTML as much as possible.
Mark
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
