"David W. Fenton" wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >the > >overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap out > >if an "I" isn't crossed or a "T" isn't dotted in the HTML*, but > >what do you expect from AOL? I mean hell, it's not like they own > >Time Warner or something! > > If IE had not been designed to render invalid HTML (i.e., guessing > what the web page is *supposed* to look like), then there would not > be all these load-of-crap HTML editors that produce invalid HTML, > since users would discard them when they saw that their browser > couldn't render the HTML produced. >
Yep, I as a web user somehow care about that. Right, you get the job of explaining that to the dozens of Mozilla users. > No, a browser should render only *valid* HTML. > What should it do when presented with 99.44% valid HTML? Like say a missing DTD line? > If that were the case, then there'd be no such thing as an HTML > editor that produces invalid HTML. > And who would be producing such magical, perfect software? And what if the invalid HTML was written by hand and you had only a person to blame? > Can you imagine a compiler that would compile invalid code, I can list a few for you. How about some that *output* invalid code too? > making > a guess as to exactly where you meant to put that END IF? That's > just bloody stupid, and the rendering of invalid HTML is just as > bloody stupid. > Again I ask, what should this hypothetical "perfect HTML only" browser do when confronted with slightly imperfect HTML? Crash? Display a MessageBox() saying "I don't understand this HTML, sorry"? Automatically send an email to the webmaster of the site bitching at him so much that he finally blocks this mythical perfect browser from browsing there? What course of action should be taken?
