> Hi Matt,
>
> 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.
Like I said further on in my e-mail, 'Note that the use of the strict parser
I describe above is
functionality intended for web page development, not browsing'. I was merely
suggesting a possible use for it, not condoning or condenming it.
> 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.
I do not only mean HTML, also JavaScript and whatever else web browsers use.
I've written quite a bit of JavaScript for commercial sites, which Netscape
invented, used in Navigator, and it became the de facto web scripting
language. Microsoft did not follow on or have any brilliant foresight, they
made their own version called JScript, which does quite a few things
differently. When writing scripts for web pages, I have had to write more
code to get scripts to work in IE than for Navigator (which also does not
follow it's own standard completely). Testing written scripts is one thing,
having to try 5 different 'JavaScript standard' methods to see if one works
in IE so you can get the functionality you want is something else.
> 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)
I know that.
> 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.
This was not meant as a specific problem with Microsoft, it also requires
developers and users to dance. If all browsers would have been equally
strict (I know, a Utopian thought), more people would probably be using
other browsers than IE right now, and web developers would be writing better
code (because no browser would show it) instead of IE-only pages, and
browser developers wouldn't have such a hard time either.
> 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.
They must have cleaned up their act a bit then, all versions I've seen sofar
are capable of producing pages IE won't even swallow.
> I don't think it would be prudent to make V strict
Nor do I, I hope that much is clear.
> - 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!!!!!!"
Glad to see the 'ARSH' acronym being used. :)
> .. 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.
Amen to that.
> Thanks
> --
> Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wouter Lamee
_____________________________________________________________________
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
