swa66 - 11:47 pm on Mar 29, 2013 (gmt 0)
You're assuming "standard" = "implemented interoperably in browsers".
Nope. A standard is a definition. That the browser crafters deliver subpar products is well-known.
It doesn't mean the standard should be subpar as well.
Letting the browser crafters control the standard is the core of the problem.
This has never been the case,
"never": tricky thing to use as one examples undermines your entire statement ... Guess you were not around before netscape came along. Browsers did support all that was in the standard back then - standard was also much shorter and easier to implement for sure.
Back then the introductions to html also started with a double statement:
- that authors of html code *had* to make perfect compliant code and not assume a browser would fix their errors for them
- that browsers *had* to allow for errors in the coding by the authors and do their best to render it as good as possible in the face of errors or omissions.
A DTD isn't required for validation,
A document can be validated against a DTD without using somebody else's service ... pointing to validation services does not make it nonsense that a DTD is easy to validate a document against.
Late 90s cargo-cult XHTML-fandom seems to be the problem here The spec defines HTML and XHTML serialisations, so there's nothing to stop you using XHTML, but most people prefer to spend their time on stuff that actually matters.
Enjoy your tag soup!
Just wondering, given the agressive tone in your reactions, do you work for whatwg ? Or somehow feel a need to defend them ?