Re: LYNX-DEV problem page

[John]

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Laura Eaves wrote: ... in part ...
lottsa stuff deleted ... speaking about msnbc ...

> Ok, since you think this is worth flaming about, i'll give
> you my 2 cents.  First, this site is not particularly bad
> for text users.  It doens't have that many graphics, and
> the images mostly all have alt strings.  The problems are
> misplaced HTML elements in the text, which is common
> across all websites. 

Well, Sorry if you took it that way, it was not meant to be
a flame (to you) ;-)

> Second, I usually always report HTML problems to web site
> owners, if they specify one.  Sometimes they respond and
> sometimes they don't -- but usually they don't, or it
> takes them a long time. 

Yeah, I do also, and my point was (which I probably did not
clearly state), that even when they do respond the usual
message is something like 'why don't you upgrade your
browser, you dumb fool' ... or whatever ...

> Third, I believe a browser is only "good" if it CAN make
> sense of common errors or unexpected or unimplemented
> constructs. 

I agree

> I worked on compilers and programming tools for many
> years.  A parser in a GOOD compiler is expected to make
> sense out of what the user does wrong in order to give
> useful error messages.  A browser has to present something
> reasonable to users who know nothing about HTML.  It
> doesn't jsut validate the code.  I don't understand the
> downright hostility toward making lynx user-friendly, just
> because it means parsing a superset of HTML instead of
> trying to strictly enforce the standard.  (Like English,
> standards change with common usage.) 

OK, here's the problem, and this is not a flame or even a
spark ... Some of us work with old machines, in my case a
286-16 (upgraded from a 286-12).  Now with that I can surff
the net to my heart's content, but what I had to do in order
to do that is make a trip to waldenbooks and spend $29.95
and a few hours reading. 

> > Well ... that may have more to do with your attempt to 'fix'
> > it than with their code ... hmmmm ...

> And what's wrong with that?

OK, What's wrong with that, is that IMHO, it would be more
productive to teach people how to write proper code rather
than to try to skirt around it, or try to 'emulate' the
folks on the West Coast.  Not all of us have eveything up
and running properly nor permissions correcty made to all of
our files, for example: 

-------------------------

      S.G. Sport long, full skirt has an all elastic waist for ease in
   movement, a 71" sweep, a straight hem and two side pockets. Available

-------------------------

OK ... see what I mean?

> Putting error recovery into lynx doesn't affect viewing of
> pages with legal html. 

I disagree, It compounds the problem because many users use
many different platforms, and the so-called error recovery
bug fix only lets people get into places where they should
not be!

> As for the problem with the ’'s scattered around the
> page, this was as much a question as a bug report.  I'm
> not familiar with how & values are supposed to be handled
> -- therefore I wasn't sure if this was a bug in lynx or
> another example of bad html on their page.  In case it was
> a lynx bug, I passed it along. 

No, it's just bad html on thier page

> > That's it ... I'm done preaching ... BYE

> Good. --le

Peace ... BYE ... John

All flames are welcome ... It's cold here !

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;