M
Mark Parnell
To bad they stopped supporting Win98 though, many people still use it.
Didn't you hear they extended it to 2006?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[LN];LifeAn1
To bad they stopped supporting Win98 though, many people still use it.
Mark Parnell said:[/url]
Didn't you hear they extended it to 2006?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[LN];LifeAn1
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/example >
is 3 lines of validated HTML with no CSS and no Javascript. Simple enough,
right? But it will instantly crash about 85% of your visitors' browsers.
Go ahead: visit it in IE 5+ for Windows. Just make sure you've saved any
work you were doing first.
Bruce Grubb said:If HMTL authors had any brains they forget about browser detection (one of
the man uses for conditional comments). If you write spec complient HTML
there is no reason to detect what broswer the end user has and in contrast
to things like <i> conditional comments only work on certain browers
anyway.
At least a commented out script will fuction properly without
crashing a broswer.
So, you believe that spec compliant HTML will not crash a browser?
Generate a complex set of nested tables. Look at it in Netscape 4.
See if crashes. If not, make the table more complex and repeat.
Not good practice, but entirely valid code.
Chris Morris said:Bruce Grubb said:If HMTL authors had any brains they forget about browser detection (one of
the man uses for conditional comments). If you write spec complient HTML
there is no reason to detect what broswer the end user has and in contrast
to things like <i> conditional comments only work on certain browers
anyway.
<i> only works in certain browsers, though. A few more than
conditional comments [1] admittedly.
Other than Linix what browers doesn't said:So, you believe that spec compliant HTML will not crash a browser?
Generate a complex set of nested tables. Look at it in Netscape 4.
See if crashes. If not, make the table more complex and repeat.
Not good practice, but entirely valid code.
For more valid but browser crashing code pick a doctype (I think any
HTML one will do) and upload the following to
http://www.example.com/loop.html:
<title>Infinite loop</title>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; http://www.example.com/loop.html">
It won't crash every browser. Quite a few will cope fine. Some will
go into an uninterruptable (short of kill -9 or OS equivalent) loop.
[1] Arguably conditional comments work in every browser. Mozilla,
Opera, and even Mosaic 2, interpret a conditional comment saying 'IE6
only code' exactly as intended...
Bruce said:The problem is according to Inkster that is NOT true as the quite
straightforward page will crash some IE broswers:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<title>Example</title>
<body><!--[if gte IE 5]><input type example><![endif]--></body>
in short in the browser conditional comments were designed for they don't
work all that well.
Other than Linix what browers doesn't <i> work in?
Toby A Inkster said:Bruce said:The problem is according to Inkster that is NOT true as the quite
straightforward page will crash some IE broswers:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<title>Example</title>
<body><!--[if gte IE 5]><input type example><![endif]--></body>
in short in the browser conditional comments were designed for they don't
work all that well.
It's not the conditional comments that cause Explorer to crash. These 20
characters of HTML alone will cause Explorer to crash:
<input type example>
The problem is that that is not valid. The DOCTYPE, title, body and
conditional comments are only required in order to make it valid.
Bruce Grubb said:Bruce Grubb said:If HMTL authors had any brains they forget about browser
detection (one of the man uses for conditional comments). If
you write spec complient HTML there is no reason to detect what
broswer the end user has and in contrast to things like <i>
conditional comments only work on certain browers anyway.
<i> only works in certain browsers, though. A few more than
conditional comments [1] admittedly.
Other than Linix what browers doesn't <i> work in?
As long as the broswerr is FULLY HTML 4.01 complient and you don't do
something stupid (ie something needlessly complex or write infinate loops)
Not valid as it is needlessly complex as per above.
[1] Arguably conditional comments work in every browser. Mozilla,
Opera, and even Mosaic 2, interpret a conditional comment saying 'IE6
only code' exactly as intended...
The problem is according to Inkster that is NOT true as the quite
straightforward page will crash some IE broswers:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<title>Example</title>
<body><!--[if gte IE 5]><input type example><![endif]--></body>
in short in the browser conditional comments were designed for they don't
work all that well. Which is IMHO a perfect reason NOT to use the blasted
things at all; a commented out script
is less likely to cause probelsm and unless you do something stupid
it should not crass a browser
Bruce Grubb said:BUT as I previous pointed old wise one:
"Some browsers close comments on the first ">" character, so to hide script
content from such browsers, you can transpose operands for relational and
shift operators (e.g., use "y < x" rather than "x > y") or use scripting
language-dependent escapes for ">"."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html>
While it might be argued that this would have been better placed earlier in
the HMTL specs it does show WHAT the problem with the page is and it also
shows FAILURE to follow HTML specs.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<title>Example</title>
<body><!--[if gte IE 5]>
^ read asend of comment
(known issue spec warns about)
As I said in my original rebuttal:
As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs
or quirks in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing
your HTML on multiple browsers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The above exploits a quirk so well known that it is actually mentioned IN
the specs. Ergo it is not valid HTML by the specs. Since this was in the
Validators are a tool and lets face it since they are automatic programs
they *will* vailidate stuff that the spec warns there can be problems with.
Which is why I speficially stated IN THE BEGINING that as long as you don't
exploit bugs or quirks of a certain browser HTML that validates negates the
need of desplaying the HTML on every browser you can get your hands on.
Chris Morris said:Bruce Grubb said:BUT as I previous pointed old wise one:
"Some browsers close comments on the first ">" character, so to hide script
content from such browsers, you can transpose operands for relational and
shift operators (e.g., use "y < x" rather than "x > y") or use scripting
language-dependent escapes for ">"."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html>
While it might be argued that this would have been better placed earlier in
the HMTL specs it does show WHAT the problem with the page is and it also
shows FAILURE to follow HTML specs.
No, it shows failure to follow some (fairly outdated) _advice_ in the
_descriptive text_ in HTML specs.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<title>Example</title>
<body><!--[if gte IE 5]>
^ read asend of comment
(known issue spec warns about)
See below for IE6's parsing of > in comments. It's correct.
Because, apart from bugs or quirks that the spec knows about, there's
absolutely no chance that a present or future browser will have a bug
or quirk not mentioned in the spec that valid code will trigger.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*Yes* *it* *is*. Validation is the checking of the HTML code against
its SGML doctype.
The comment in the spec about comment ending is a
warning about browser bugs *in force at that time*. Since the HTML 4
spec is *over five years old*, it shouldn't trip up a relatively
modern browser like IE6. And indeed, it doesn't. IE6 correctly displays
"<!-- Comment > Still comment --> Not comment"
as
"Not comment"
Yes, it's a _warning_, not a violation. Furthermore it's a warning
based on the browsers around in the mid-late 90s, often on the
browsers that were _dying out_ then.
And how, without displaying the HTML in a browser, can you know that
you haven't *accidentally* 'exploited' a bug or quirk? There are
several bugs/quirks not mentioned in the specs (how could they be,
those browsers hadn't been invented then) that can be triggered by
entirely valid code, without exploiting bugs quirks of other browsers,
that will crash (or at least fail to work properly in) some browsers.
Bruce Grubb said:That is one method of validating HTML.
Side note Inkster's pages does NOT validates using the validator linked to
at webpagesthatsuck <http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/>.
That validator in fact states:
There were 2 document structure problems found.
There are 2 potential meta tag errors in your document
There is 1 browser support conflict in your document.
and finally
with IE 1.0 not understanding the said:So by this validator at least this page is NOT valid HTML just as I said in
the begining. You lose Inkster.
Steve Pugh said:It is the only _method_ of validating HTML.
Bruce said:Excluding commented out invalid tags and infinity loops what html will
crash a broswer (since HTML is NOT a page layout format displaying things
is an irrelevent issue)?
Have you any idea how much of a fool you've just made yourself look?
Toby A Inkster said:Here's another one for you then...
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/crash
Will crash IE on Windows 98 -- does not crash IE on Windows NT or Mac
though.
No scripts, no CSS, no applets, no frames, no tables, and Bruce -- just
for you -- no comments.
Bruce Grubb said:This little gem violates basic common sence rather than HTML specs
<body background="file:///C:/CON/CON">
The file URL is for LOCAL (to the broswer) files. Having a broswer do this
is just asking for trouble and there is no real reason anybody in their
right mind would use something like this.
Bruce Grubb said:Irrelevent as other people have pointed out not everyone uses the latest
browser or has added patches to the old ones. Besises it is a BROSWER
specific issue which is another non-no.
Excluding commented out invalid tags and infinity loops what html will
crash a broswer
(since HTML is NOT a page layout format displaying things is an
irrelevent issue)?
That is one method of validating HTML.
But since that are automated programs they will validated stuff
that reading the spec in detail will indicated could be a problem
(the '>' prematurely ending a comment for a example)
<snip story about someone with an automatic generator>
In short VPenman followed the Windows idea of throw the thing at as many
[windows] broswers and if it works than it is right. Even if it is by the
specs way wrong.
Too many times I have seen HTML authors blindly generate HTML that doesn't
even validate but as long as it works on any [windows] broswer that they
throw the botchup at it is 'right'. Is that the mentality you support?
If it is a commented out tag or the like remove the comments and see if the
things still validates; if not then rewrite the thing. Improper displaying
add the said:of elements is not a problem as HTML is NOT nor NEVER will be a page markup
format.
no. So said:Besises it is a BROSWER specific issue which is another non-no
Sure you can write infinate loops in any thing HTML calls to and it will
validate (but will likly cause problems) but that is not the validator's
fault.
Validators like HTML authoring program are tools and like any tool they do
require a little use of common sence. Would you use a wrench to hammer a
nail; sure you could use it that way but why unless you absolutely had to?
The same question goes in regards to commented out invalid tags, infinate
loops, and browser specific crap. Is there a reason it is there other than
'I want to show that I can write something that validates but will cause
some browsers to crash' or 'I don't give a flying flip what the WWW uses
they *must* use browser 'x' version 1.0.1'?
If there is there is no reason that such junk is there other than an ego
trip jolly fest than there is NO valid reason for it to be there.
Bruce Grubb said:This little gem violates basic common sence rather than HTML specs
<body background="file:///C:/CON/CON">
The file URL is for LOCAL (to the broswer) files. Having a broswer do this
is just asking for trouble and there is no real reason anybody in their
right mind would use something like this.
Chris Morris said:Yes, that's the point! You can't argue that validation is sufficient
to avoid browser problems if you then require common sense too. There
is no good reason (apart from a very obscure part of the Windows 98 OS
structure) that that code should cause any problems in any browser.
And yet it does. Perfectly valid, largely in line with common sense
(c:/CON/CON could be an image were it not a forbidden filename in
W98, and how many people who, say, only *test* on NT would have problems).
Obviously, they could and should test on W98 too. But then we're back
to the need to test pages, even ones which validate, in multiple
browsers, which is what you were arguing against.
No, no-one *ever* distributes documentation on CDs in HTML format for
viewing in a local browser. And no-one would ever develop an
application with the acronym 'CON'.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.