On Monday 10 November 2003 12:12, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >yea, yea, of course. and still you can't reasonably expect that all web
> > sites in the entire world will be made to be 100% validator friendly.
>
> It's easier to conform to one browser (the validator) than to each and
> every browser out there.
Big mistake - the validator is not a browser. its a very simple syntax parser
with no rendering capabilities. While the validator lives in its own
make-pretend world where everything is either standard compliant or not, we
live in the real world where there are many shades of gray.
> > I'd still
> >expeect that I would be able to use my favorite web browser to view them.
>
> That seems less reasonable to expect from every web site in the world.
I beg to differ. in case it wasn't obvious, I didn't mean "every buffer of
text that can be referenced by a URL and might or might not be parsable as
some sort of presentation language", but instead "every web site that someone
wrote and attempts to be displayable by at least one version of a software
component that falls under the category 'web browser'."
> >My point ... a list of web sites
> > that aren't usable on FOSS web browsers, as Amichai suggested, would be
> > much more useful (and smaller).
>
> But less justifiable, and therefor less likely to be reduced.
"reduced" ?
I think that this cause is highly justifiable and - as you noted before -
since the validator can be called up by users or automaticly by scripts, this
kind of list is more difficult to create as its a repostiory of human
experience and hence its more important to create such a thing.
--
Oded
::..
Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn
up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't.
-- Robert Orben
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
