IssueRaiser

"I've always though of HTML as a way to hide the idea that it the markup is just an s-expression" This is a historical issue with HTML.

"I've always though of HTML as a way to hide the idea that it the markup is just an s-expression" This is a historical issue with HTML. It's supposed to be "markup". The original idea was that HTML documents would be mostly text with some tagging. Since it was just "markup", markers that triggered formatting operations, it wasn't considered necessary that a strict tree structure be enforced. HTML5 still tolerates and parses such constructs as "Plain <b>Bold <i>Bold italic <&#x2F;b>Italic <&#x2F;i> Plain". This may be a holdover from the way things worked in UNIX nroff&#x2F;troff, an early markup language. XHTML requires that the tags balance, which seems to put a lot of people off. I thought at one time that XHTML would replace HTML, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, browsers were made too lenient. It probably would have been better if, after detecting an error, browsers put a red band across the page with an error message, then continued to display using default fonts and colors. Then we could have avoided years of struggling with browser incompatibilities due to non-uniform handling of errors. (I'm currently trying to figure out why BeautifulSoup 4, the Python library, creates a broken parse tree and crashes for documents which contain "<head><head> ... <&#x2F;head><&#x2F;head>". "kroger.com" has that. You'd think that the web pages of the Fortune 100 would be better.)

Posted by Animats on Mar 17, 2015, 3:08 AM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,500 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

"I've always though of HTML as a way to hide the idea that it the markup is just an s-expression" This is a historical issue with HTML.

AnimatsMar 17, 2015, 3:08 AM

"I've always though of HTML as a way to hide the idea that it the markup is just an s-expression" This is a historical issue with HTML. It's supposed to be "markup". The original idea was that HTML documents would be mostly text with some tagging. Since it was just "markup", markers that triggered formatting operations, it wasn't considered necessary that a strict tree structure be enforced. HTML5 still tolerates and parses such constructs as "Plain <b>Bold <i>Bold italic <&#x2F;b>Italic <&#x2F;i> Plain". This may be a holdover from the way things worked in UNIX nroff&#x2F;troff, an early markup language. XHTML requires that the tags balance, which seems to put a lot of people off. I thought at one time that XHTML would replace HTML, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, browsers were made too lenient. It probably would have been better if, after detecting an error, browsers put a red band across the page with an error message, then continued to display using default fonts and colors. Then we could have avoided years of struggling with browser incompatibilities due to non-uniform handling of errors. (I'm currently trying to figure out why BeautifulSoup 4, the Python library, creates a broken parse tree and crashes for documents which contain "<head><head> ... <&#x2F;head><&#x2F;head>". "kroger.com" has that. You'd think that the web pages of the Fortune 100 would be better.)

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue