knowing what and when to feature test
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - How do I make a suggestion? (2010-01-17)
Next: Passing primitive variables by reference in JavaScript
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Jan 2010 07:46 Garrett Smith wrote: > | Nonsense. The HTML standard makes recommendations as to how parsers > | are supposed to handle invalid markup. But again, it is not wise to > | rely on that as those are only recommendations. > > That statement is a wrong statement and harmful advice to anyone trying > to learn html and javascript. No, it *evidently* is not. PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
From: John G Harris on 24 Jan 2010 12:11 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 at 13:46:01, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >Garrett Smith wrote: > >> | Nonsense. The HTML standard makes recommendations as to how parsers >> | are supposed to handle invalid markup. But again, it is not wise to >> | rely on that as those are only recommendations. >> >> That statement is a wrong statement and harmful advice to anyone trying >> to learn html and javascript. > >No, it *evidently* is not. The key parts of HTML 4.01 Appendix B1 are : "However, to facilitate experimentation and interoperability between implementations of various versions of HTML, we recommend the following behavior: .... user agent encounters an element it does not recognize .... user agent encounters an attribute it does not recognize .... user agent encounters an attribute value it doesn't recognize .... it encounters an undeclared entity .... Since user agents may vary in how they handle error conditions, authors and users must not rely on specific error recovery behavior." It doesn't mention the kind of mess that is found in so many web pages. Thus Garrett is right. John -- John Harris
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 24 Jan 2010 16:03 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> | Nonsense. The HTML standard makes recommendations as to how parsers >> | are supposed to handle invalid markup. But again, it is not wise to >> | rely on that as those are only recommendations. >> >> That statement is a wrong statement and harmful advice to anyone trying >> to learn html and javascript. > > No, it *evidently* is not. Since you are asserting the positive, it wouldn't cost you a lot to, say, post a link to the part of the HTML standard that you are referring to. Not for whoever you are arguing with (since he has an interest, he can check it himself), but for everybody else who are reading this from the sidelines. /L 'http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#notes-invalid-docs' -- Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen 'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Jan 2010 16:03 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> | Nonsense. The HTML standard makes recommendations as to how parsers >> | are supposed to handle invalid markup. But again, it is not wise to >> | rely on that as those are only recommendations. >> >> That statement is a wrong statement and harmful advice to anyone trying >> to learn html and javascript. > > No, it *evidently* is not. > No, your statement is incomplete. As I stated: Code that uses malformed, nonconformant HTML is expecting nonstandard behavior. That is correct advice. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Jan 2010 16:12
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Eric Bednarz wrote: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>>>> Eric Bednarz wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> Contrary to others, I know what I am talking about when it comes to >>> organizations like the W3C. >> A few days ago, you were quite certain that HTML 4 defined clear >> expectations for nonstandard HTML. > > First of all, that previous discussion has nothing to do with my statement > of fact that the W3C makes Web standards, and with my knowledge about > organizations about the W3C contrary to certain others people's. > It's a long chain of your pointless thread-destroying pedantry. The only point of that seemed to be to prove that I was incorrect. > Second, what you describe is _not_ what I said. Instead, I said that HTML > 4 made certain recommendations as to what to do with invalid markup, so > that (quote Garrett) "Code that uses malformed, nonconformant HTML is > expecting nonstandard behavior" is obviously a fallacy; No, what I wrote is a true statement and correct advice. You are free to make your own false expectations from invalid markup. If you such false expectations here, they will probably be corrected. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |