Jon Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Tony Gill wrote:
> > 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.
> You might do if you try to... Or if... Or if... Or if... Or, well you get the
> idea why I'm keen on doing this [..]. (my ellipsis)
Sure, but I'm not disagreeing with you -- as it says above, they (the kludges) are
only acceptable "if [they] work for people/every common browser/robots". Take this to
also encompass SGML editors, HTML outputters etc. -- The point I was making was that
the validation services are only useful to test the compatibility of web pages with
these productivity tools, not for their own sake.
And besides, any tool that can't handle slightly duff HTML gracefully is going to
meet nastier things lurking in dark alleys than Dublin Core scheme stuff!
> Yep I'd like a consistent approach as well, but I'd also like one that
> doesn't break the HTML DTD or software that might use it. For me,
> consistent == standard.
Standards should always be consistent, but there's no logical implication that
consistency should be standard! (Sorry I guess metaphysics is off-topic for meta2 ;-)
cheers,
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 ==
|