On Monday 10 November 2003 13:42, Oded Arbel wrote: > I of course completly disagree. by definition a browser should always make a > best effort in trying to display a web page, no matter how broken it is.
Sure thing. Content consumers (web browsers) should as lenient as possible, but we are talking about content producers (web sites) and they should be as strict as possible (because they shouldn't assume what kind of device or software is accessing their site). > When you get down to it, there are some IE "extensions" that are a better > interface then W3's. document.all comes to mind, but also attachEvent > instead of addEventListener (the interface is better). Irrelevant. Every standard has some compromises. These are improved later as newer versions and/or new standards (html-3.2, html-4.0, ...xml, xhtml). Having each person choose (his preffered) ideal interfaces brings us the chaos we currently call the Web (maybe Flash has even better interfaces than what you used, so let's go for it :-( > it would be a good idea to support such (usable) extensions even though > they are not defined by W3. Only if it doesn't undermines the greater goal of having a common stanard everybody can cooperate with (I haven't set an opinion about Konqi extensions in this regard yet). -- Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron "Debugging is at least twice as hard as writing the program in the first place. So if your code is as clever as you can possibly make it, then by definition you're not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
