Matt,
> Hello Don
>
> On 19-Jul-01, you wrote:
>
> > How about satisfying everyone by having a preferences
> option to set the
> > parser for these entities to "IE", "Strict" or "Opera" ?
> That would keep
> > everybody happy, until next time.
>
> Don't be stupid, Don.
>
> > Of course, that involves a fair bit of coding, but it could
> go on the
> > "to do" list.
>
> But it isn't. Why would anyone want "strict" support, when
> it'll break a
> good handful of real world sites? Why would anyone want "Opera"
> support when Opera clones IE almost exactly in this regard, as far as
> I could tell?
First off, I agree with you (as formulated in the amusing M:I style
posting), but I do have an answer to your question on why anyone would want
'strict' support: If you're writing pages yourself. If a 'strict' parser is
available that is strict enough to break anything that would break in any
current/popular browser, one can use this to test one's own written pages.
Like you say, the W3C Validator is the best place to do this, but this is so
strict you end up doing loads of things no browser cares about. A strict
parser in a browser would be less strict than the W3C Validator, but strict
enough to make sure your pages will work or look the same in a variety of
browsers. Note that the use of the strict parser I describe above is
functionality intended for web page development, not browsing.
I am aware of the difficulties of trying to merge the W3C standards with the
imposed Microsoft standards, and I know from experience that Microsoft's
so-called standards only make their product look better. This is because
they have what they call a more forgiving (loose, incomplete and
non-standard compliant are all better descriptions) parser. In the mean time
they make it impossible for other browser developers to make browsers that
comply to W3C standards AND show all the pages that IE shows. I believe V is
doing a pretty good job at this.
At the same time, MS has made it easier for people who are only interested
in writing pages that work in IE. Try writing a page by hand, see when IE
accepts the page, then see what 'extras' are required to make it
W3C-standard compliant. IE will accept a huge number of errors without
complaining, which results in many people writing pages, thinking they wrote
a proper page because 'it works' in IE. Then users are being forced to use
IE if they want to see this page, because it breaks on other browsers.
That's the Microsoft strategy.
Much as I like standards ('proper' ones, not the Microsoft ones), I'd prefer
V to show pages instead of break them. Try and take a look at Amaya, the W3C
editor/browser. They claim it 'implements W3C specifications very
carefully', which 'allows you to be sure that you are producing correct
markup'. It's open source, maybe someone wants to have a go at porting it to
the Amiga. That program will quickly show you the ludicrous amount of pages
out there that are not standards compliant, and then you'll appreciate V's
work.
Wouter Lamee
P.S. Maybe we should use the acronym ARSH for anally retentive
standards-hugging :)
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
