If website developers don’t want browsers to “tamper” with their code in any way, then I say: Go for it. From now on, only perfectly valid websites will be displayed, since leniency toward the rules would in effect change the website.
Headings not in order? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed”.
JavaScript error? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
Forgot to close a <div>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
An <input> without an associated <label>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
<img> without an <alt> text? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
Duplicate IDs on the page? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
I don’t disagree with you, but this is how internet explorer stayed the #1 browser for so long. It would accept any garbage and display it somewhat properly, while Netscape tried sticking to standards.
If website developers don’t want browsers to “tamper” with their code in any way, then I say: Go for it. From now on, only perfectly valid websites will be displayed, since leniency toward the rules would in effect change the website.
Headings not in order? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed”.
JavaScript error? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
Forgot to close a
<div>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”An
<input>without an associated<label>? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”<img>without an<alt>text? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”Duplicate IDs on the page? “Sorry, this website is broken and can’t be displayed.”
I don’t disagree with you, but this is how internet explorer stayed the #1 browser for so long. It would accept any garbage and display it somewhat properly, while Netscape tried sticking to standards.
Thanks for quoting the lore. I wasn’t there when it was written.
ouch
Lets bring back xhtml then.