Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19-Jul-01, you wrote:
> 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.
If you're writing strict code, the browser is not the best place to do code
checking: HTML is very "loose" in it's definition, as is the code on the web.
You should run weblint or something over your code - and fix the important
errors - for instance, a missing </li> is no big deal, weblint will report it by
default but you don't have to fix it. Just like many commercial applications
with source code compile with warnings all over the place, they don't need
fixing when the application works or when you can rely on other things to
pick up the slack.
> 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.
You are of course talking a load of tripe here: "imposed Microsoft standards"
would be what, exactly? I can think of no more than 5 actual things that MS
have implemented that are in common use (table bordercolor attribute, the
document.all object, some other minor abhorations) and V supports them all.
Why are they "Microsoft" standards and not W3C standards? Because Microsoft
had the foresight to implement them before standards were formulated. The
document.all object is a great example of this: the W3C DOM1 specification
replaces it with the more sensible document.getElementById() - but this does
not make the prevalence of the Microsoft method, pre standard implementation,
any less valid - and V supports both, just like Internet Explorer 5.0 does.
Microsoft's "slack" parser is not a cause for concern: it is based on other
slack parsers to give compatibility with a wide range of webpages around
the world. They do not implement more forgiving parsing of anything to
aid web developers (because, if you'd seen the code for a web browser's
parser, supporting "slack" html is much more difficult and time consuming
than supporting "strict" html)
> 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.
No, that's called being a friendly browser and not complaining to USERS when
a page breaks a standard: it is up to the browser to make the best of code
it is passed. The W3C are to blame for this recommendation.
Microsoft make tools that generate compliant code (Microsoft Word, recent
editions of Frontpage that don't pander to <HTML4.01 and a lack of CSS in
browsers) which developers can use. It might be a mess, but the W3C parsers
accept it as perfect code.
> 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.
I'd like to see that, in that I'd like to see someone try and then fail
miserably :)
> out there that are not standards compliant, and then you'll appreciate V's
> work.
I don't think it would be prudent to make V strict - as Zapek pointed out:
Them: "XYZ Page doesn't work in Voyager! This is a bug! Please fix it!!"
Us: "What HTML parsing mode are you running?"
Them: "Strict ARSH Mode!!"
Us: "Disable it."
Them: "But then V no do standards! NO MICROSOFT! RAM IT UP ASS!!"
Us: "Tough shit then"
Them: "You lack tact!!!!!!"
.. and so on. There is nothing wrong with a slack parser unless you wish to
validate code. Browsers do not validate code, they execute it. The W3C and
many other bodies provide tools for validation.
Thanks
--
Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
