Stu Weibel wrote: (about scheme-scheme HTML-crime)
> I respect the position of Jon and Lauren (and others, undoubtably), who
> want approved, parsable HTML, but once again, if the *ONLY* thing in
> the world that is compromised is validation (and this, only in a very
> constrained, arguably parsable way), should this stand in the way of
> trying to establish a practice that is what we want down the road?
I have to agree with Stuart here, adherence to standards should be a means to
an end (or ends), not an end in itself; if the various 'scheme-scheme kludges'
work for people/every common browser/robots, should we worry if a few
validation services pick up on a small number of invisible HTML-crimes? I
certainly won't be losing too much sleep over it.
Besides which, as long as a *consistent* approach is used, it should be
relatively trivial for your friendly local hacker to practice their arcane art
by converting the 'kludges' to a standard format, should consensus be reached
at a future date.
Jon could then use the extra income from this programming work to pay for
additional counselling ;-)
Tony
--
== Tony Gill ================================= ADAM Project Leader ==
Surrey Institute of Art & Design * Farnham * Surrey * GU9 7DS * UK
Tel: +44 (0)1252 722441 x2427 * Fax: +44 (0)1252 712925
== [log in to unmask] ============================= http://adam.ac.uk ==
|