also... SGML/DTD

[Eric Litman]

In nxstep.omniweb on 29 Jun 95 07:05:46 GMT, gad at eclipse.its.rpi.edu wrote:
# Eric Litman <Eric_Litman at nxstep.com> writes:

# > What exactly would be the benefit of restricting yourself from
# > viewing the nearly countless number of pages on the web which do
# > not conform precisely to the latest DTD?

# The key is the comment "a preferences selection".  Ie, you can read
# sloppy HTML if you want to, or you can see what happens if you only
# accept documents that fit the official specifications.  Why would
# you want this?  Well, how can you tell that *your* pages (ones you
# write...) are "generated strictly" unless you have something strict
# to look at them with?  By eyeballing them?  My eyeballs aren't that
# good.  They tend to see what I want them to see, especially when
# it's something I just wrote.

I have to take issue with this point. While I do agree that
validation and conformance testing tools are useful, an end-user
browser should perform these functions. Perhaps your comment would
be more applicable were OmniWeb to be a hybrid browser/development
tool. And yes, while it can be argued that as a tool for display of HTML
OmniWeb is useful to developers, this is merely argumentative. A
metaphor: "We breathe with our lungs, therefore we are useful tools in
air-quality testing."

# Clearly this would have to be an option though (if it was done at
# all), since the key principal for HTML really seems to be "generate
# whatever you want, and if Netscape accepts it then tell everyone
# else that the browsers that they're using is wrong".  This is a
# "key principal" that I'd like to see done away with...

I agree. Unfortunately, it's a market reality.

</eal>
--
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
	-- Western Union memo, 1877