In article <9kic92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> I'm guessing all the unclosed <font>s are causing some stack to fill, and
> Mozilla gives up rendering the rest of the page? Anyways, I think it'd be
> nice if Mozilla could handle this, although I have no idea how hard it'd
> be to do. IE can do it ;)
>
> I'm using Mozilla 0.9.3 on Win32.
Adding additional bloat to a browser to try and interpret bad code is
not the right way to address the problem. Sure, in this case it might
seem like a simple fix. Missing closing tags. So say Mozilla adds code
for it. Tomorrow it'll be something else, and the person will say,
"well, you supported bad html for missing closing tags for <FONT>, so
you should support THIS bad html too". So Mozilla gives in and adds
more code for that instance of bad HTML as well. Then a third
situation, and a fourth, and so on.
Then suddenly, someone has a page which combines Bad Code Instances 1,
6, 28, and 73, for which there is no logical solution, yet demands that
Mozilla read their mind too and fix their code for them. Then it
happens again, when you've got #46, 23, and 101. Now the Mozilla team
find themselves wasting even more time writing additional code and bloat
into Mozilla to accommodate for these unresolvable situations, instead
of coding Mozilla to properly handle standards-compliant code (a big
enough challenge in-and-of itself, and one that IE does NOT succeed at).
Mozilla takes longer and longer... it's 2003 and we're only at 0.9.9.4.1
You see where this is heading? You thought Mozilla was already bloated
and behind-schedule. The last thing we need to do is distract the
Mozilla developers by demanding they somehow figure out from bad code
what was REALLY meant, and somehow resolve contradictions and missing
logic in the process.
This is not the way to write a browser, or support the internet.
It's not too much to demand that people write proper code. That's the
way coding in a language works. People seem to be under this
misconception that writing code for HTML/CSS/XML should be any different
than Basic/Pascal/C/assembly/Java/Perl/whatever. Bad code doesn't work.
It doesn't compile. It doesn't run. You want it to work, you need to
learn the proper methods and fix your code. Period. Not expect the
compiler to compensate. People writing compilers/browsers have enough
work as it is, and it is unreasonable to expect the compiler/browser to
be able to logically handle every conceivable mistake (and in
combination) that a coder might write.
