XHTML DTDs failing in IE5

[David Megginson]

A. G. McDowell writes:

 > I have made a quick search for RFCs promoting the well-known
 > internet dictum
 > 
 > "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send"
 > 
 > So far I have found RFC 1122 (perhaps the widest quoted), RFC 791,
 > and RFC 1896. This dictum sounds sensible and has been tested in
 > practice. I don't see how a browser could justify going any further
 > than raising some sort of warning indicator when faced with
 > something it could interpret unambiguously, but dislikes.

It really depends on how serious the consequences of misinterpretation
might be.  Imagine, for example, that the browser tried to supply a
missing tag and incorrectly rendered a chemical from the list of
cleaning agents that *shouldn't* be used to the list of cleaning
agents that *should* be used.

Now, imagine that an aircraft maintenance mechanic then used that
cleaning agent on the insulation around the wiring that passes through
a jet's fuel tank.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)