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 16:35 Garrett Smith wrote: > 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. It is gibberish to begin with. "Code that uses ... is expecting ..."? Perhaps if you managed to post a coherent statement, a more fruitful discussion would follow. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Jan 2010 16:44
Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> 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. What you call "pointless thread-destroying pedantry" were necessary corrections because you twisted my words to fit your argument, and a number of false assumptions were made by you and other people in the process. > The only point of that seemed to be to prove that I was incorrect. You were. >> 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. It is not. It is gibberish, and if interpreted in your favor, a wrong statement and no advice at all. > You are free to make your own false expectations from invalid markup. Straw man. The expections are not false, your statement is. And you are continually ignoring (perhaps on purpose) that I am _not_ making a recommendation to use invalid markup (which would appear to be your insinuation). I am only saying (again) that the Specification makes provisions for invalid markup. That this is true can be confirmed by simply reading the referred section where there is the wording "we (the authors) recommend ..." > If you such false expectations here, they will probably be corrected. If you learned to read and write properly, perhaps we could have some progress here. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16 |