On Sun 6 Jan 2002 12:05:59 -0600 Day Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, Arachne itself has lotsa problems with M$ webpages. Why should the developers of any good web browser stoop to condescend to comply with the psuedo-standards of some rogue software producer and web page developer such as Micro$oft? Whenever I try to compile some C language source code with my Turbo C compiler, my compiler will flag bad code as an error. That is because Turbo C is a good compiler and it conforms to accepted standards. Similarly, when you are trying to render an M$ web page with a good browser, your browser should flag the bad HTML and and poorly written scripts encountered on M$ web pages as errors. A good browser should refuse to render a bad web page just like a good compiler will refuse to compile bad source code. Arachne should be no more forgiving of bad Micro$oft HTML code than Turbo C should be forgiving of my bad C language source code. Designing and writing a new compiler that can compile my bad source code is the wrong way for me to attempt to solve my problem. Why should I foist off my new rogue compiler on others and why should any others be interested in having something that can compile my bad source code? The right way for me to solve my problem is to correct my code so that a good compiler can compile it. Similarly, the right way for Micro$oft to develop its web pages would be to adhere to accepted standards so that a good browser like Arachne can render them. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
