Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> Mark Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Thomas wrote:
> >...
> > > The Web loses some usefulness in people not being required to author
> > > perfectly valid, perfectly accessible, well-indexable pages. But it
> > > gains far, far more usefulness in the resulting ease with which
> > > people can put up information *at all* for other people to read.
> >
> > Which is why HTML generators should have been required
>
> Required by whom? The U.S. Government? The United Nations? Tim
> Berners-Lee and a squadron of winged monkeys?
You've found me, my pretty!
> > to put out
> > standards compliant code in the first place.
>
> `Look at this Web page, Mulder. It's been generated by a perl script,
> and is full of non-compliant HTML. That's a capital offence.'
> `But Scully, how do you know that it wasn't just hand-coded? If this
> guy hand-coded it, non-compliance is just a misdemeanor, not a felony.'
> `Well, at first I thought it was done by hand ... But if you view the
> source through an electron microscope, you can clearly see the HTML tags
> arranged in the shape of a camel. Tell-tale sign of a perl script, for sure.'
> `So who wrote this script? Let's see ... "Commander Taco"? What kind
> of bizarre alias is that?'
It was wishful thinking (in hindsight, no less). Certainly nothing to
give thought to on any massive scale.
But a point to you for creativity. :)
> >...
> > Thankfully, XHTML can get off on the right foot and fix the current
> > problems somewhere off in the future.
> >...
>
> Which is why I predict that XHTML, served as text/xml, will never be as
> popular as HTML or XHTML served as text/html.
Not for a while, anyway.
