[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"David W. Fenton" wrote: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >the >> >overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap >> >out if an "I" isn't crossed or a "T" isn't dotted in the HTML*, >> >but what do you expect from AOL? I mean hell, it's not like >> >they own Time Warner or something! >> >> If IE had not been designed to render invalid HTML (i.e., >> guessing what the web page is *supposed* to look like), then >> there would not be all these load-of-crap HTML editors that >> produce invalid HTML, since users would discard them when they >> saw that their browser couldn't render the HTML produced. >> > >Yep, I as a web user somehow care about that. Right, you get the >job of explaining that to the dozens of Mozilla users. I greatly *prefer* a browser that rejects invalid HTML. >> No, a browser should render only *valid* HTML. >> > >What should it do when presented with 99.44% valid HTML? Like say >a missing DTD line? That's not required by all versions of HTML. It should choose a DTD and do its best within that DTD. Dealing with a missing DTD is not the same thing as guessing where a </TABLE> tag should go, as IE does and Netscape never did (very common scenario -- "I can see it with IE, but the page is blank in NS!!! What's wrong?"). In the case of the DTD, it's a non-required element, and there's a definition of what browsers can do with it. With a missing </TABLE> tag, there's really no proper way to guess what to do with it, and by no stretch of the imagination does any DTD allow the omission of that tag. >> If that were the case, then there'd be no such thing as an HTML >> editor that produces invalid HTML. > >And who would be producing such magical, perfect software? And >what if the invalid HTML was written by hand and you had only a >person to blame? It should be rejected as invalid HTML, and the user should be instructed to run it through a validator to tell them what needs to be fixed. >> Can you imagine a compiler that would compile invalid code, > >I can list a few for you. How about some that *output* invalid >code too? To the same degree that HTML editors do? I don't believe it. >> making >> a guess as to exactly where you meant to put that END IF? That's >> just bloody stupid, and the rendering of invalid HTML is just as >> bloody stupid. > >Again I ask, what should this hypothetical "perfect HTML only" >browser do when confronted with slightly imperfect HTML? Crash? >Display a MessageBox() saying "I don't understand this HTML, >sorry"? That latter sounds nice. >Automatically send an email to the webmaster of the site bitching >at him so much that he finally blocks this mythical perfect >browser from browsing there? What course of action should be >taken? If browsers wouldn't render it, people wouldn't produce it. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
