On 5 Aug 2001 20:50:08 GMT,
Dave Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>(XML is another story.) OTOH, increasing the stack limit to allow even
:>more broken pages is most likely not worth the effort. Authors should
:>just fix their HTML.
:They should, but like it or not, most people use IE as their HTML
:validator--if it displays in IE, they consider it working. I like
:David Gerard's idea of letting the user know that the site they're
:visiting has broken HTML, but render it anyway. Lynx does this, for
:example ("Alert!: Maximum nesting of HTML elements exceeded.", "** Bad
:HTML!! Use -trace to diagnose. **"). If all browsers would do the same
:thing, especially IE, the amount of crap HTML on the web would be
:significantly reduced :)
Particularly if the validator includes an option to open the page in the
composer, with the HTML in question fixed. ("Here's the right answer. Don't
do it again.") Perhaps define the proper random abuse in the chrome. ("You
are using document.layer - are you just LAME?!")
I think this powerful product will greatly enhance our growth!
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
"I am so pissed off right now that I could just shit a live pitbull." (Jay)
