Comment by JimDabell
Comment by JimDabell 2 days ago
> - XHTML. Have you ever read the parsing rules for HTML 5, where the semantics for bad HTML were formalized? Browsers should just punt at the first error, display an error message, and render the rest of the page in Times Roman. Would it kill people to have to close their tags properly?
Amen. Postel’s Law was wrong:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9413
We stop at the first sign of trouble for almost every other format, we do not need lax parsing for HTML. This has caused a multitude of security vulnerabilities and only makes it more difficult for pretty much everybody.
The attitude towards HTML5 parsing seemed to grow out of this weird contrarianism that everybody who wanted to do better than whatever Internet Explorer did had their head in the clouds and that the role of a standard was just to write down all the bugs.
Just to remind you that <bold> <italic> text </bold> </italic> [0] that has been working for ages in every browser ever, is NOT a valid XHTML, and should be rejected by GP's proposal.
I, for one, is kinda happy that XHTML is dead.
[0]: By <bold> I mean <b> and by <italic> I mean <i>, and the reason it's not valid HTML is that the order of closing is not reverse of the order of opening as it should properly be.