On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:11:04 -0400, Nikita the Spider
<NikitaTheSpider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
Absolutely. Otherwise, they can have no confidence in their
interpretation of what they traverse, hence Google's reliance on
everything but its own algo.
BB
--
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.kruse.co.uk/close-ended-questions.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-software-review.htm
|
|
