"Braden McDaniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
95saus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:95saus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Bitterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Braden, it IS the web developers fault when they develop non-standard
> > HTML web sites.
>
> Whose fault is it that those misfeatures were there to be (ab)used? Blame
> Netscape, blame Microsoft... But the customers are just capitilizing on
> what they've been dealt.
>
> Expecting people not to use features that are *there*--even if they are
> of questionable merit--is just naive. Whether the features "should" or
> "should not" be used is utterly irrelevant.
Of course the features were put there for people to use them. It would be
absolutely silly to add features to a product and then expect no one to use
them!
But if you do use non-standard features of a language, you're taking the
risk that those features will not work in other versions of software.
Another good example of a language with implementations that support
non-standard extensions is SQL. If you're smart, you avoid the extensions so
that your SQL has a chance of working with more than one DBMS.
The first edition of HTML: The Definitive Guide sums the situation up quite
well:
"In general, we urge you to resist using an HTML extension unless you have a
compelling and overriding reason to do so... We admit that it is a bit
disingenuous of us to decry the use of HTML extensions while presenting
complete descriptions of their use. In keeping with the general philosophy
of the Internet, we'll err on the side of handing out the guns and rope to
all interested parties while hoping you have enough smarts to keep from
hanging yourself or shooting yourself in the foot."
I'm sorry if you weren't smart enough to avoid hanging or shooting yourself,
but it's your own fault it you weren't. You now have a choice: you can
continue to whine, or you can learn from your mistake.
