Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20-Jul-01, you wrote:
>> You should run weblint or something over your code
>
> 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.
"Real" web developers use weblint, not Voyager, to make sure their code
is sane ;)
>> You are of course talking a load of tripe here: "imposed
>> Microsoft standards" would be what, exactly?
>
> I do not only mean HTML, also JavaScript [snip] Netscape invented
And screwed up..
> 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.
IE supports Javascript - and it's better than Netscape Javascript in that
you can check Voyager against IE without IE crashing and burning like
Netscape does ;)
Considering that IE either follows precisely or adds to the JS specifications,
and Netscape couldn't even be bothered to iron out the bugs in their own
language implementation, I'd rather use IE.
As for JScript - it's based on what became ECMA-262 just like Javascript,
and oddly enough is actually more compliant with that specification than
Javascript actually is: in that it implements the nice, base standards first
and then starts exposing document objects in a pleasant way (not the NS
way, where the language is defined purely as a web scripting language
with a cacophony of objects which have no real use - later slimmed down
by Netscape itself in JS revisions 1.4 and above so that it didn't look so
shitty)
> 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.
I've never had that problem, I always code for IE - with knowledge of what
Netscape can and can't do in the back of my head so that hopefully I don't
execute IE specific code on Netscape.
Really, why cripple yourself these days anyway? As long as you use
document.getElementById() and the other W3C DOM1 support functions,
your code can access any object on the DOM and work in IE, Mozilla
and Opera instantly.
>> 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.
Then why say that Microsoft have ruined the browser by making it
forgiving, and implying that it is some nefarious tactic?
>> 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.
I suspect that if browsers were 100% strict from the start (Mosaic et al.
onwards) then we'd all probably still be using Internet Explorer, but just
have much cleaner webpages that are easier to debug - since MS browsers
would be as good as any other (and vice versa) but MS browsers would
still be bundled with the OS and available for a smaller free download
and a lot less of a hideous installation prodecure than "other" browsers.
In fact, I reckon MS would have been a lot more aggressive in that sense,
since if Netscape was as strict and rendered pages exactly then it would
have been more competition - but I also reckon that Netscape can't code
for toffee.
>> Microsoft make tools that generate compliant 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.
You don't look hard enough: Word outputs fully compliant XML code (in that
XML *is* 100% strict, so non-compliant code would fail) and Frontpage no
longer uses non-HTML4.x constructs and attributes seeing as it favours
the use of CSS.
>> I don't think it would be prudent to make V strict
>
> Nor do I, I hope that much is clear.
So what *is* your post about? All I saw was a "there's good reason for
browsers to be strict!" "Microsoft suck" "strict browsers RULE!" type
monologue. Are you just trying to be clever, because there's no point
to your post if it's not a suggestion for stricter compliance in V, for
"developers" if noone else..
>> .. 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.
Way to contradict yourself, matey.
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
