Story: Testing times for open source
Posted by: Anonymous (Thursday 21 October 2004, 8:02 PM)
You're right: good software design needs to validate it's input and not just assume everything is happy. Even still, why is Internet Explorer's behavior "good"?
This browser behavior encourages sloppy web development. Would this type of behavior be acceptable in a compiler? Would you be willing to bet there are no bugs/unintentional side-effects in code that the compiler had to "interpret" for you because of a syntax error? What's more, would you consider it "good" that the compiler would not even *warn* you that it encountered unexpected input?
I'm not saying the behavior of the other browsers is better or worse. I am saying that *none* of their behaviors are correct. It would also seem that the W3C agrees with that position because all XHTML browsers are *supposed* to spit out an error when they encounter malformed pages. If not, then XHTML will suffer the same fate as HTML: browser bloat (which is one of the things XML/XHTML was designed to avoid).
Full Talkback thread
Story: Testing times for open source
-
You're right: good software design needs to valida... Anonymous -
Someone found a way to crash FireFox, What's the f... Rubbish Article -
On a day when two new security vulnerabilitie... Anonymous -
I work daily with computers using various OS's and... Anonymous
-
This article is silly and misleading. It reads as... Anonymous
-
IE has come out the clear LOSER!
What wasn't said,... Stephen Pinker
-
Yes. I reviewed the code and tested it on the nam... Matthew C. Tedder
-
How can this guy come out with something saying in... Ian
-
What this says to me is that IE is as slack as a..... Mr. The Kurgan
-
Mr. Goodwins, I think you should rewrite the... Pedro Bezunartea
-
Update from BUGTRAQ:
http://www.securityfocus.com/... Arthur B.
Back to: Testing times for open source
