Mark Anderson wrote:
>
> Matthew Thomas wrote:
>...
> > The Web loses some usefulness in people not being required to author
> > perfectly valid, perfectly accessible, well-indexable pages. But it
> > gains far, far more usefulness in the resulting ease with which
> > people can put up information *at all* for other people to read.
>
> Which is why HTML generators should have been required
Required by whom? The U.S. Government? The United Nations? Tim
Berners-Lee and a squadron of winged monkeys?
> to put out
> standards compliant code in the first place.
`Look at this Web page, Mulder. It's been generated by a perl script,
and is full of non-compliant HTML. That's a capital offence.'
`But Scully, how do you know that it wasn't just hand-coded? If this
guy hand-coded it, non-compliance is just a misdemeanor, not a felony.'
`Well, at first I thought it was done by hand ... But if you view the
source through an electron microscope, you can clearly see the HTML tags
arranged in the shape of a camel. Tell-tale sign of a perl script, for sure.'
`So who wrote this script? Let's see ... "Commander Taco"? What kind
of bizarre alias is that?'
>...
> Thankfully, XHTML can get off on the right foot and fix the current
> problems somewhere off in the future.
>...
Which is why I predict that XHTML, served as text/xml, will never be as
popular as HTML or XHTML served as text/html.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, usability weenie
(Fading away into the distance)
