At 10:53 PM 11/19/2002 +0000, Robert O'Connor wrote:
On 18 Nov 2002 at 21:43, Laurens M. Fridael wrote:Hmm... what about those of us who want the tool to work in as many cases as easily-possible, rather than being holier-than-thou and refusing to work on sites because they have innocuously-broken code?
> complying with W3C standards is hardly a priority or
> even a consideration.
I would tend to differ on that point.
Over the next few years, Plucker is going to become the dominant force as it continues to
mature and the commercial alternatives wither. AvantGo, in particular is on the downgrade, with
a delisted stock, layoffs, CEO resignations, and sagging sales.
As Plucker continues to rise, I would offer that Plucker chooses the best practices, in the
form of documented W3C and ISO standards, instead of picking up the bad practices of the
withering commercial off-line browsers.
(This doesn't refer to the "back" functionality; I don't care about that. I use Plucker for content, not for buttons. It just refers to the board-mentality that Plucker should be less tolerant of errors than any browser, instead actively refusing to touch sites with even the most minor of transgressions.)
-Tony McNamara-
_______________________________________________
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
