ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: Speaking of deprecation...
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:29:47 GMT
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez wrote:

> > - you can write a html page that displays in netscape2.0. People don't
> > have to upgrade their pages every for every new browser.
> Don't exagerate, HTML is certainly not the example.
> You'd better not put any presentation in your damn html page then or you
> deserve to be shot.
> HTML + CSS rules. HTML sucks.

HTML 'presentations' ( with CSS, flash, activeX, etc ) sucks indeed, and
will not work problably on anything except IE ( latest ). You can
write this kind of pages without problems, and force the users to
upgrade or use your version of the browser.

But my point was that a page with clean HTML that worked 10 years
ago will still display corectly today ( I have few ), and you
can ( still ) write clean HTML ( including with CSS ) that
display on any browser, including Netscape2.0, WebTV, Mozilla,
konqueror, opera or lynx.

> For how many years do we have to support crappy pages where there is
> everything but the correct data in it ?
> I want a STRICT syntax, not a loose one where everything is permitted. I
> would be curious to know what was the cost of having decided that start/end
> tag of html/head/body is optional.

Or what would have been the cost to decide that pages with optional
start/end are going to triger an annoyng  warning in Netscape2.1, and not
work in Netscape3.0 ( and to force the HTML authors to upgrade all their
pages every year, and the users to use the latest browser )

Standards are not perfect - I agree optional start/end are bad, and
I'm sure you'll be able to find something that can be done differently
in any of them ( from TCP/IP to XML ). But making incompatible
changes to an accepted standard ( including a de-facto standard like
the build.xml tags and attribute names ) is far more damaging than
supporting the standard. Everyone is smart and could have done
a better HTML.

> Now you are simply unable to write a page that display correctly in any
> browser because of the need for browsers to support every crap out there.
> That's the cost of legacy.

I think you confuse things. You can't write a page full of crap that will
work on any browser, but if you stick to the basic HTML - you certainly
can. Test your page in lynx first - it's one of the best browsers ( one
of the few that sends the mandatory charset ), and it'll work everywhere.

Upgrade to the latest IE, use the 'cool' new features - and of course
your page will be visible only in IE. That's the cost of 'featurism'.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message