Allowing erroneous pages to render is not inherently bad, especially with standards that can change in the future. Look at earlier HTML (< 4) vs XHTML. If a page is written in XHTML and is read by a browser that doesn't understand XHTML, the browser still attempting to render it by ignoring any junk it doesn't know how to handle (the self-closing tags, for example) would be a very desirable thing for the end user. I don't think this is a good counter-example for this reason.
On July 9, 2020 4:59:09 PM EDT, Michael Conrad <mcon...@intellitree.com> wrote: >On 7/9/2020 3:16 PM, Markus Gothe wrote: >> Jon Postel formulated the robustness principle decades ago. Still >> today it is a good advice to "be liberal in what you accept and >strict >> in what you send". > >Counterexample: Internet Explorer > >It allowed so much garbage to render correctly that other browser >vendors had to work overtime to accept all the same garbage and make >sure it rendered in the same way. Then, subsequently when IE was no >longer defining the standard, progress was hamstrung by needing to be >compatible with its own past allowances lest they be accused of >breaking >people intranets. So much so that they just weren't able to fix most >of >their bugs and eventually abandoned the project. If they had just >declared tighter standards and enforced the rules, web development >might >not have been a misery for an entire decade. > >_______________________________________________ >busybox mailing list >busybox@busybox.net >http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
