[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 00:29, Jeff Rafter wrote:
> > Virtually all of them were XHTML but even in the documents containing an
> > XHTML declaration, less than 50% were well formed.
>
> I wonder how persistent this problem is once you get behind the server... In
> many cases (even on XHTML-L) I have seen folks that work really hard for
> WFness and Validity only to insert some advertiser HTML (or free website
> HTML) that kills their effort. Either way, on the back end it is developed
> correctly and can be processed in a pipeline fashion.
>
> This may be the case and it may not. I think XHTML is a bad example though--
> you have a large group of developers who have been trained in the ways of
> HTML and Browser forgiveness... they can make mistakes and the only check
> is: how does it look in the browser.
Yes, sure. OTH I see litle evidence that this is going to change and
while we are discussing on xml-dev of possible evolutions of XML most of
the new documents being published on the web are still not well formed.
This is something we will have to live with for a long time, to
acknowledge and to accept.
As Rick Jelliffe was saying these are situations where well formed is
too much and validity if too little for which we need to develop better
tools.
Eric
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
