Re: what options do we have was Re: POSIX shell\; bash ash pdksh \& /bin/sh
On Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 02:33:14PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Oh, wonderful. Yes, it is broken. But just like all the
> > popular browsers out there, we should try and accept broken scripts
>
> If you mean the interpretation of bad HTML, I must disagree strongly.
> Web browsers should be completely intolerant of non-compliance.
I dunno about that...that really depends on what you mean by
non-compliance. An example is use of <EMBED> not every version of every
browser supports <embed> acording to an older bwrowser from when <EMBED>
didn't exist doesn't know <EMBED> and consider it "bad html"..but..
I have never seen a browser fail because of it.
It is great to have a browser (or shell) that fails on the tinyest
"non-compliance" for testing but...in the real world a browser (or
shell) should be tolerant.
if there was a shell that was strictly POSIX complient and failed
completly at the tinyest infraction of the standard, I would
happily sym link /bin/sh to it and happily file bug reports
against everything that fails because of it but...
I woul dnever force that on a user or on a "production system"
> That seems to be an argument for why it can change without considering them.
I think bash (or some other tolerant and easy to use shell) should be
the default. any changes to things more restrictive should be up to the
system admin.
-Steve
--
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <sjc@delphi.com> --- <sjc@debian.org>------------ */
E-mail "Bumper Stickers":
"A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!"
"honk if you Love Linux"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: