In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 03:37:56PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote: >> Arguably, pkgreport.cgi etc. not coping with & where & is expected is >> correct behaviour, but there are one or two browsers which don't decode >> character entities in URLs (in the case of at least one such browser, it >> was a design decision based on & in URLs often being a literal & rather >> than marking the start of a character entity).
>> Better to be liberal in what you accept :-) > Funny you should say that, in light of... > X-Message-Flag: Outlook Express is broken. Upgrade to mail(1). > IMHO this is not a bug, it's a request for supporting broken browsers. Any browser which displays <a href="index.html>Home page</a> as a link, containing the text "Home page", to index.html is supporting broken HTML; should it simply fail to display it? Or perhaps a broken RISC OS port of mkisofs which doesn't translate '/' to '.' - should Linux isofs (which is trivially patchable to work around this) just not find files whose names (brokenly) contain '/'? As it happens, there's a version of Browse which correctly handles URLs in links; a few people have beta-test copies. It just never got released because the rights to it, RISC OS and some other things were bought by Pace, and they're a *lot* more paranoid about releasing software than Acorn were... ... and I do recognise that there are people who'll continue to use Outhouse Express because it happens to do things conveniently for them; just as I continue to use Browse. But that won't stop me from saying "don't use OE"... I suppose that the main (relevant) difference is that OE can inconvenience many people, whereas Browse can inconvenience only its user ;-) -- | Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | RPC, Spec+3, A3010 | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org | BBC M128, Linux PC | Toon Army | @ | Retrocomputing: a PC card in a Risc PC She sells cshs by the cshore.
