Re: W3C attack on HTML

To further the education of mankind, Stephen Poley
<sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xxxxxxxxx> vouchsafed:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:15:22 -0400, Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

To further the education of mankind, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> vouchsafed:

In other words, instead of taking the old approach, "This is a bad
doctype, so I'm not going to tell you anything till you fix it or
use the drop-down list to tell me what you think it is I'm looking
at," it tried other strategies to see if it couldn't help you
without further effort on your part. And then, in a magnificent show
of ingratitude, you posted here to complain about it.

Haha, yes, that's right, but when Microsoft does the same thing,
_everybody_ complains.

Er no - the Microsoft approach would be to take a wild guess and not
tell you anything. Or maybe to supply a validator built in to Windows
which silently changes the document if it finds anything it doesn't
like.

I don't disagree that MS has exhibited calumny in this respect, but my
point is that I'd much rather see (-hear...) that something is broken if
it is broken and not have some dubious piece of software (of any brand)
"patch it up" for me. Of course the term "within reason" applies here,
and if the mistake is noted and accepted in a logical manner, that would
probably suffice.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
.

Loading