Netscape added <layer> tags, IE introduced <iframe> tags, both browsers made different DOM attributes accessible via javascript, etc.
What we are looking at here is simply market forces at work. When you have a whole 2 browsers accounting for 99% of the world's user base, then those two browsers effectively define the standard between them.
Couple this with only very vague guidelines on how to actually render HTML and you have a recipe for disaster.
The SMTP spec is somewhat less vague and not prone the the same flights of imagination that web page design deals with. It is also a much stronger requirement that a SMTP server should play nicely with others, given that no-one has market dominance.
I am not advocating that we place JAMES in violation of the spec. I am advocating that we do all that we can within the spec to be tolerant of alternative interpretations and violations.
It is particularly important that we tolerate the same things that other major SMTP servers tolerate, or we risk interoperability failures with them and their clients.
Cheers
ADK
Kenny Smith wrote:
Hi Aaron,*Interoperability Rule Number One:* Be strict in what you send and lenient in what you accept.
I disagree. This idea is what has made HTML into an ugly mess that no one implements in the same fashion. Internet Explorer started being lenient with the HTML that it accepted and now we have a huge mess with browser incompatibilities. We have an HTML standard and it doesn't mean anything, because no one follows it. No one follows it because they code the HTML wrong and IE displays it. So, they never end up learning how to do it the right way.
I agree with Peter, adding this kind of functionality encourages people to be lazy and dilutes the spec.
Kenny Smith
JournalScape.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
