4 ms·
I agree with those positions, but what about the middle ground? Browsers for example, taking machine-to-machine data which sometimes is human generated. I'm a
by wolrah 10y ago
I agree with those positions, but what about the middle ground? Browsers for example, taking machine-to-machine data which sometimes is human generated.
I'm a fan of the strict solution as far as that goes, but there's a reason XHTML failed. Somehow asking people who write web sites to do it right or else it doesn't work is a big deal.
- taneq 10y agoThe best approach seems to be to be strict in what you accept, and strict in what you emit, and if you want your software to be forgiving to the vagaries of human input, then strictly adhere to a forgiving spec.
- Too 10y agoThe difference is a user interface translates the non strict version to the strict version instantly once you click the submit button. A hand written html file is stored persistently, retaining the flaw for all future.
- user5994461 10y agoWell. How to say that without being dismissive of the average web hobbyist... Well, when the job is to accept a hugely complex flexible poorly defined input format from 30 years ago that is written by millions of people who have no clue what they are doing, fixing common errors and getting anything to render is part of the spec ^^ And... oh wait! I said "Be liberal in what you accept from the user" when it comes to user input. Web pages are user input, so yeah, browsers are no exception to the rules, they're actually a perfect example! :D
- chrismorgan 10y agoIf the web had been strict from the start, we would never have had a problem: people would never have been publishing invalid documents because browsers would have been rejecting them outright. XHTML failed because HTML existed and was good enough.