Broken HTML Support
pantosys at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 20:27:28 UTC 2006
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:
Many existing cms's, blogs, etc generate broken html
Less experienced users can insert the <http-equiv /> tag
Broken HTML implies poor respect of standards, how can we assume
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...
Size: 2365 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/yadis/attachments/20060210/6c27f719/smime.bin
More information about the yadis