Seems to me that Mozilla can be a bit too picky about HTML... in
particular, see http://www.azeotrope.org/~khym/moztest.html
It's a bunch of lines like:
something
something else
etc...
There are 200 lines like that, but Mozilla only shows the first 196. If
I fix it so that the tag is properly cl
Dave Huang wrote:
>
> Seems to me that Mozilla can be a bit too picky about HTML... in
> particular, see http://www.azeotrope.org/~khym/moztest.html
> It's a bunch of lines like:
> something
> something else
> etc...
>
> There are 200 lines like that, but Mozilla only shows the first 196. If
> I
And it came to pass that Dave Huang wrote:
> Seems to me that Mozilla can be a bit too picky about
> HTML... in particular, see
> http://www.azeotrope.org/~khym/moztest.html It's a bunch of
> lines like:
>something something else
>etc...
>
> There are 200 lines like that, but Mozilla only show
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write
>good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to
>overcome your laziness?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Sorry that you're not bright enough to
u
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write
> good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to
> overcome your laziness?
In my opinion, Opera is a good example of a browser that's almost
totally unforgiving with regard to html errors or slop
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Clarence (Andreas M. Schneider) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>AIUI HTML 4 limits the nesting level of tags to 100,
>Mozilla handles up to 200 (but only 75 for Mac).
>
>http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/htmlparser/src/CNavDTD.cpp#1339
Ah, thanks for the pointer.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:06:55 -0400,
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Christopher Jahn wrote:
:> So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write
:> good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to
:> overcome your laziness?
:In my opinion, Opera is a good example of a brow
> There are 200 lines like that, but Mozilla only shows the first 196. If
> I fix it so that the tag is properly closed (or get rid of the
> tag), everything works fine.
What would be nice, would be if somebody could clearly answer your
question - rather than making disparaging comments:
1.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bassford) wrote:
> 1. What part of the coding has Mozilla stop at 196 (Confirmed?) lines?
There is a nesting limit in the parser.
> What's the reasoning for this particular number?
Someone figured that allowing deeper nesting would mak
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(XML is another story.) OTOH, increasing the stack limit to allow even
>more broken pages is most likely not worth the effort. Authors should
>just fix their HTML.
They should, but like it or not, most people use IE as t
>So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write
>good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to
>overcome your laziness?
People don't just browse their own websites.
And it came to pass that Dave Huang wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henri
> Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(XML is another story.) OTOH, increasing the stack limit to
>>allow even more broken pages is most likely not worth the
>>effort. Authors should just fix their HTML.
>
>
And it came to pass that Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
>>So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write
>>good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to
>>overcome your laziness?
>
> People don't just browse their own websites.
>
>
When you lower the standards, the sta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And it came to pass that Dave Huang wrote:
>> They should, but like it or not, most people use IE as their
>> HTML validator--
>
>Sloppy. They should use a validator, not a browser.
They should, but like it or not, mos
>IOW, if you design a browser to accomodate a 20% error rate,
>designers will allow pages to pass with 25% bad code. If you
>change to 25%, the designers will allow 30%. It's a negative
>feedback loop.
I can't think of any reason why not closing 100 tags would be of
benefit to anyone (well,
On 5 Aug 2001 20:50:08 GMT,
Dave Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>(XML is another story.) OTOH, increasing the stack limit to allow even
:>more broken pages is most likely not worth the effort. Authors should
:>just f
> Someone figured that allowing deeper nesting would make a stack overflow
> somewhere. (It has happened. That's why the limit was put in.)
So it shows as much as it can without crashing. An excellent
explanation.
I can't recall now - wasn't there some discussion about showing a
tray ico
On 6 Aug 2001 06:10:09 -0700,
Jason Bassford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Someone figured that allowing deeper nesting would make a stack overflow
:> somewhere. (It has happened. That's why the limit was put in.)
: So it shows as much as it can without crashing. An excellent
:explanation.
:
And it came to pass that Dave Huang wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>And it came to pass that Dave Huang wrote:
>>> They should, but like it or not, most people use IE as
>>> their HTML validator--
>>
>>Sloppy. They should use a validator,
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
>
> >IOW, if you design a browser to accomodate a 20% error rate,
> >designers will allow pages to pass with 25% bad code. If you
> >change to 25%, the designers will allow 30%. It's a negative
> >feedback loop.
>
> I can't think of any reason why not closing 100 tag
In article <9klctj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> They should, but like it or not, most people use IE as their HTML validator.
This does not make such behavior right, nor should we try and "solve"
the problem by encouraging people to continue down the path of such
behavior.
I
In article <9kic92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> I'm guessing all the unclosed 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.
>That is an interestingly broad statement. Do I understand that there are
>no high level language compilers or interpreters that you can recommend?
Let me break down my broad statement into two groups. When the code's
intent is unambiguous I fully expect any software to cope. When the
code's inte
>It's not too much to demand that people write proper code.
OK, what about these situations:
a) Webdesigner views their own site but doesn't know how to fix it.
b) Webdesigner views anothers' broken site and is unable to use it but
notifies the owner. Website owner doesn't respond.
c) Computer i
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
>
> a) Webdesigner views their own site but doesn't know how to fix it.
Then he can't call himself a Webdesigner.
Everybody can throw out bad HTML code, a real Webdesigner knows what he
is doing and when he finds an error knows how to fix it, or at least he
can then
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
> > It's not too much to demand that people write proper code.
> OK, what about these situations:
> a) Webdesigner views their own site but doesn't know how to fix it.
Then he's not a web designer. That's like saying a mechanic can't change his own
spark plugs.
> b) We
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott I. Remick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Instead, the problem should be addressed in the obvious way: educate
>people that IE is not standards-compliant and has no place as a litmus
>test for valid code.
Okay, well let me know when you're done with your reedu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott I. Remick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>f
David Gerard wrote:
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72935
note that this is not a browser bug, it's a webtools bug, specifically for mozbot.
but thanks for the links :-)
29 matches
Mail list logo
