5 ms·
it's that principle that is partly (largely?) responsible for the god-awful state of website standards.
by diN0bot 17y ago
it's that principle that is partly (largely?) responsible for the god-awful state of website standards.
- kragen 17y agoMark Pilgrim wrote an excellent rebuttal in 2004, showing why you are completely, entirely, 100% wrong on this: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought_experiment http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought_experime...
- nailer 17y agoI agree with your point, but am modding you down as the tone of your message is somewhat aggressive. Perhaps you should read the HN posting guidelines?
- kragen 17y agoYes, of course you are correct. (Coming on the same day as a bunch of eulogies for Erik Naggum on HN, this is kind of funny, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.) Unfortunately it is too late for me to edit my message.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoThat boils down to "what if your admin tool refuses to make any state changes because your current state is invalid?" This is inherently bad design, and doesn't justify anything other than fixing the admin tool.
- mquander 17y agoI disagree. Even if your admin tool worked, bad content could still make its way onto your site as long as your site was partially user-contributed. If user clients complained about bad content, you'd have to be on perpetual cleanup duty to make them happy, which sounds terribly tedious.
- tlrobinson 17y agoWell, no. If your blog software were properly written it would validate the user-contributed content before including it. If browsers were more strict about these sort of things from the start then such bugs would be far less common. But as soon as someone claims Postel's Law we start down the slippery slope, which ends with monstrosities such as modern web browser engines.