Broken HTML Support

[Joseph Holsten]

I'd really like to start collecting best practices to help pin down  
how the spec is being used, which SHOULDs and recommendations are  
being ignored, etc. In particular, what's the position about handling  
broken html, because Josh thinks it should be handled, I think it  
doesn't meet the spec, and should be ignored. Pros and Cons of  
accepting the broken type:
Pros
	Many existing cms's, blogs, etc generate broken html
	Less experienced users can insert the <http-equiv /> tag
Cons
	Broken HTML implies poor respect of standards, how can we assume  
security?
	Less experienced users can set up an identity without learning much  
about the technology, and so without necessarily learning the risks  
that come with the benefits
	It's harder to parse

I'm not saying we should demand the page have a <!DOCTYPE /> or pass  
the validator without any  errors, but a "SHOULD be well-formed"  
seems acceptable, if not implied.

Also, my gut says everything I wrote is wrong, but my reasoning isn't  
telling me why. Anyone care to straighten me out?

J. A. P. Holsten


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2365 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/yadis/attachments/20060210/6c27f719/smime.bin