block in open()

[Keith Thompson]

The instructions are there regardless whether or not the environment can
understand them. In the case of an html file, there are no instructions.
I.e. something cannot be considered an executable format if it does not
have the potential to be "executed" on any system because it does not
contain any text to be interpreted as instructions to be carried out.

HTML contains instructions to be carried out in a limited context
(display this text in boldface, display this image, etc.). It cannot,
as far as I know, specify arbitrary computations.

The question of whether this does or does not make it an "executable
format" is neither topical nor, IMHO, particularly interesting. (It's
really a question about the meaning of "executable format".)

 

[Jordan Abel]

HTML contains instructions to be carried out in a limited context
(display this text in boldface, display this image, etc.).

No. it contains bold text, or, rather, markup indicating that a region
of text is bold. Tag soup has _never_ been an appropriate way to
interpret html. HTML is not a programming language.

It cannot, as far as I know, specify arbitrary computations.

The question of whether this does or does not make it an "executable
format" is neither topical nor, IMHO, particularly interesting. (It's
really a question about the meaning of "executable format".)

Eh. I think it was at least entertaining to see someone advance the idea
that there is no such thing as an executable format to support the
position that HTML is one.

Anyway - the idea that HTML (as opposed to javascript) is executable is
merely incorrect. The idea that HTML can be a security risk in one
medium (usenet) but not in another (www), on the other hand, is
absolutely ludicrous.