On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 09:46:01AM +1300, Stephen Lewis wrote:
I have a suggestion regarding this: While supporting broken HTML isn't really in the project goals, would it be possible to wrap a tool like htmltidy using the dpi?
So that dillo itself never even gets delivered broken HTML at all, becauses it's all been pre-processed into something valid...
One of the objections to accepting and attempting to display broken HTML is that you have no idea if the browser interpretation of the bad HTML matches the intention of the author. HTML is well described so it's not exactly rocket science to generate gramatically correct HTML source. The fact that so many web pages generated programatically are seriously broken and there is huge resistance to correcting the situation is worrying. It means that not only do browsers have to deal with the many published versions of the HTML standards and the common propriatory extensions, they also have to be bug and interpretation of bad HTML compatible. The result will be that HTML is actually defined by the unpublished, defacto behaviour of the browser with the biggest installation base. It also means that browsers become hugely bloated as more and more variations to correct HTML have to be dealt with; with the bloat comes more difficult to correct bugs. Now we know what to avoid, perhaps it's time to give up on HTML and try again :-) -- Geoff Lane McDonalds hamburgers are made from 100% real clown meat.