Re: [WSG] wishing not for picky browsers (was) Barclays standards redesign

[Ben Curtis]

On Sep 14, 2005, at 12:40 AM, heretic wrote:


At 03:44 PM 9/7/2005, Christian Montoya wrote:


I was actually thinking the other day, browsers should be more like
compilers... they should refuse to parse incorrect code. Then the
enforcement would be on the output end, too.


Why on earth would I want to use a browser that refused to show me
pages that didn't validate?  I'd be blocked from seeing 98% of what's
on the internet.

...

Realistically the horse long since bolted on the concept. But imagine
two scenarios:

1) Code compilers were as forgiving as browsers

In this scenario, it wouldn't matter how broken, inefficient or
vulnerable (security holes) the program was; the compiler would
cheerfully let it through and it could end up on your computer.

Now think about how often you have to patch the average windows
machine to plug up the latest hole. Imagine how much worse it would be
if there was even less standards enforcement! :)


Meaning, that I could teach my mom to program effectively in an  
afternoon? That artists and journalists would get basic programming  
skills covered in the first two weeks of class? That about one out of  
three people interested in software would actually be able to program  
it -- unlike the one out of maybe twenty now?


How horrible. :)



2) Browsers were as unforgiving as compilers

If this had always been the case, everything you could view on the web
would be standards-compliant.


When I first started learning HTML, I viewed-source on the "Yahoo"  
page. The only Page. They hadn't bought a domain yet. They had a  
message at the bottom of the page, after having listed a couple  
hundred categorized links, "If you know of another URL not on this  
list, please let us know." If browsers were as restrictive as  
compilers, *none* of those sites would even exist, because they were  
all done in the free time of professors, students, internet  
aficionados, and hackers with better things to do. But HTML was so  
easy and forgiving, everyone was trying their hand at it. Three years  
after explaining what a URL was, they were on billboards and ads  
everywhere. That's faster adoption than the DVD had at about the same  
time.


Making browsers forgiving is part of the core ideology of the Web. I  
wouldn't discard it so casually.


--

Ben Curtis : webwright
bivia : a personal web studio
http://www.bivia.com
v: (818) 507-6613




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] wishing not for picky browsers (was) Barclays standards redesign

[heretic]

> At 03:44 PM 9/7/2005, Christian Montoya wrote:
> >I was actually thinking the other day, browsers should be more like
> >compilers... they should refuse to parse incorrect code. Then the
> >enforcement would be on the output end, too.
> Why on earth would I want to use a browser that refused to show me
> pages that didn't validate?  I'd be blocked from seeing 98% of what's
> on the internet.

You're right in terms of what the user wants, but I would say that
what the user wants is not what is best for them. For example, we want
rich tasty food but it's not what's best for us all the time :)

Realistically the horse long since bolted on the concept. But imagine
two scenarios:

1) Code compilers were as forgiving as browsers

In this scenario, it wouldn't matter how broken, inefficient or
vulnerable (security holes) the program was; the compiler would
cheerfully let it through and it could end up on your computer.

Now think about how often you have to patch the average windows
machine to plug up the latest hole. Imagine how much worse it would be
if there was even less standards enforcement! :)

2) Browsers were as unforgiving as compilers

If this had always been the case, everything you could view on the web
would be standards-compliant. Or at least, as compliant as a computer
can test for... there would still be any number of ways for the human
element to create problems :)

So it's a nice daydream to think how things might have been; but
to introduce it now would be marketshare suicide for the browser
concerned.

Personally I'd be fine with it; but most of the people on this list do
not fall in the "average" category and our pages are more likely to be
compliant. I think I'd just love to see the fallout against big
application vendors when all of their products ceased working
overnight.


That was an awfully long way of saying, you're right in the current
practical sense; but I think the sentiment is more accurately applied
as "if we could turn back time...".

cheers,

h

-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not 
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] wishing not for picky browsers (was) Barclays standards redesign

[Paul Novitski]

At 03:44 PM 9/7/2005, Christian Montoya wrote:
I was actually thinking the other day, browsers should be more like 
compilers... they should refuse to parse incorrect code. Then the 
enforcement would be on the output end, too.


Christian,

Although I may understand where you're coming from, I need to say 
that only we hyper-geeky web developers would ever wish for an 
appliance that failed unless the input data were precisely 
correct.  Wishing for a picky, fussy browser is a sure sign that 
you've gone around the bend and are already a distant blob up-river.


What most people want -- and what most of us want most of the time in 
real life -- are appliances that are smart and easy-going and 
flexible enough to carry on and do the job in spite of fractured or 
insufficient input.  We'd love to have digital clocks that didn't 
reset every time the power went out, cars that could run quite 
happily and cleanly on any old fuel, computers that tolerated the 
latest operating system, bodies that stayed healthy in spite of all 
the delicious crap we feed them.


Rather than wishing for a browser that would refuse to render invalid 
markup (I believe the technical term is "break"), I believe that what 
would best serve most people are browsers that are fuzzily logical 
enough to render most pages, from the most pristine semantic XHTML to 
the worst old-school fractured markup, as best they can.


The primary goal of browser design, after all, isn't to give web 
developers a pretty reflection of our own work but instead to give 
web users a useful window on the virtual world.


This is, in fact, what most browser developers attempt to provide.

Why on earth would I want to use a browser that refused to show me 
pages that didn't validate?  I'd be blocked from seeing 98% of what's 
on the internet.


Regards,
Paul 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**