Re: what options do we have was Re: POSIX shell\; bash ash pdksh \& /bin/sh
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: what options do we have was Re: POSIX shell\; bash ash pdksh \& /bin/sh
- From: Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:43:52 -0400
- Message-id: <19980804174352.B2447@scowler.ml.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <19980731154649.B3961@mgh.harvard.edu>; from Stephen J. Carpenter on Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 03:46:49PM -0400
- References: <19980731151805.A5442@gondor.apana.org.au> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19980731173536.B12446@gondor.apana.org.au> <email@example.com> <19980731132136.B12307@scowler.ml.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19980731143314.B12898@scowler.ml.org> <19980731154649.B3961@mgh.harvard.edu>
> 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.
I'm sure I there is an example of a page where <EMBED> tags are necessary.
toward one of these pages that rudely assume you have it, you may be
quite puzzled as to why the page is not navigable. Only if you look at
the source will you realize that the page is badly broken.
> 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.
This browser-shell comparison is not very valid.
The notion of a shell ignoring part of a script it doesn't understand
and executing the rest is hardly practical.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org