4 ms·
Uhh... I wonder how large the percentage of users is that see a broken site if you strictly adhere to that principle.
by Kenji 10y ago
Uhh... I wonder how large the percentage of users is that see a broken site if you strictly adhere to that principle.
- Sharlin 10y agoBrowsers have always accepted "broken" HTML, "tag soup" as it's known, in order to not break existing web pages. HTML 5 simply codifies existing behavior.
- fiddlerwoaroof 10y agoThis behavior is actually older than HTML itself is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language#Markup_minimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_La...
- Sharlin 10y agoYeah, true. SGML certainly has some "interesting" features.
- TheRealPomax 10y agoA conservative guess would be "about 100%", since every browser (even the shitty ones built over the weekend these days) rely on HTML5-compliant DOM parsers. Since this code follows the official HTML5 spec to the letter (optional means optional - a parser will do the same whether an optional thing is written our or left off), HTML5-compliant parsers just see "correct data" and convert it into the only DOM it can be turned into.
- Kenji 10y agoI think you mean "about 0%" see a broken site in response to my comment. Anyway, I get your point. However, I am a big fan of the robustness principle: Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. So for me personally, the issue is clear-cut. I will keep my codebase as clean as possible/affordable, be it HTML or C++, not relying on quirks that have been introduced to tolerate faults of careless designers and programmers.