Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Search engines should not list ill-formed application/xhtml+xml at
> all, because a user following the link would see the YSoD.
Ah, but what about XHTML 1.0 served as text/html, which is in a weird
twilight zone where it is neither "HTML" nor quite the same as
"text/html
On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Aankhen wrote:
"I was gonna go to this site I found on Google, but then I saw that it
was corrupted, so I figured it musta been a security issue or
something."
The original problem I was contesting and attempting to solve was that
use
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:28 -0800, Aankhen wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents?
>
> That seems reasonable; if it were unobtrusive, most users would just
> ignore it, but it'd be there for anyone who w
Aankhen wrote:
> "I was gonna go to this site I found on Google, but then I saw that it
> was corrupted, so I figured it musta been a security issue or
> something."
The original problem I was contesting and attempting to solve was that
users would think, incorrectly, that such messages indicated
On 12/18/06, Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents?
That seems reasonable; if it were unobtrusive, most users would just
ignore it, but it'd be there for anyone who wanted to know.
--
Aankhen
(We have no branches.)
On 12/18/06, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would however definitely suggest better messages, since "WARNING"
verges on being meaningless. Perhaps "HTML (corrupted)" and "XHTML
(corrupted)" for documents that cite (or imply) a standard document type
but clearly fail to conform
On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:57, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
"XHTML (broken)" for non-well-formed XHTML.
Search engines should not list ill-formed application/xhtml+xml at
all, because a user following the link would see the YSoD. However,
in cases of slightly broken text/html, the user could s
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:57:08 +0600, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Humans don't work that way. If the words "HTML (WARNING)" or "XHTML
>> (WARNING)" started appearing next to over 90 percent of search results,
>> people would not think that something was wrong with 90 percent
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:26 +1300, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Humans don't work that way. If the words "HTML (WARNING)" or "XHTML
> (WARNING)" started appearing next to over 90 percent of search results,
> people would not think that something was wrong with 90 percent of Web
> pages. They wo
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:14 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
... [proposal for search engines to denote pages that don't validate
as "HTML (WARNING)" or "XHTML (WARNING)"]
I have huge doubts that this would pass even elementary
usability testing, because most users would just say "I
don't care".
But
10 matches
Mail list logo
