____/ Nikita the Spider on Sunday 28 October 2007 20:11 : \____
> In article <1483097.SThvHVRULv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ____/ Nikita the Spider on Friday 26 October 2007 18:32 : \____
>> > It's true that some invalid pages will render fine on an acceptably high
>> > percentage of user agents (we all have a personal definition of
>> > "acceptable"), and it is also true that a page can render poorly in a
>> > browser even though the page is valid. But just as expressing myself
>> > with good spelling and grammar give me the best chance at being
>> > understood by those who read what I write, writing valid HTML gives me
>> > the best chance at being understood by the user agents that read my
>> > pages.
>> >
>> I like this analogy very much, but I'll admit caring about cleanliness of
>> code
>> while caring very little about proofreading what I write. In code, unlike
>> speech, subtle changes can make big difference, including major failures.
>
> That's a good point. Computers can only dream of our (human) skills at
> interpreting messy input. Someday they'll get there and the DWIMNWIS
> command (Do What I Mean, Not What I Say) will finally work. For now,
> they need all they help we can give them.
>
No, that's dangerous. They should at least generate warnings (if not errors),
like a compiler. The worst small mistakes are the ones you are not aware of.
--
~~ Best of wishes
.oʍʇ sɐ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ 'ɹǝpuǝq 'ʎɹɹoʍ ʇ,uop :ʎɹɟ
.oʍʇ ɐ ʍɐs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puɐ ...ǝɹǝɥʍʎɹǝʌǝ soɹǝz puɐ sǝuo .ɯɐǝɹp 1nɟʍɐ uɐ
ʇɐɥʍ 'ɥɥɥɐ :ɹǝpuǝq
|
|
