------art_27611_12668411.1179359049106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/17/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 17, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Phrogz wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 10:18 pm, Jg W Mittag <Joerg.Mit... / Web.De> wrote:
> >> For example, the
> >> following snippet is a perfectly well-formed and valid HTML document,
> >> but none of the regexps posted in this thread so far are able to
> >> correctly parse it:
> >>
> >>   <HTML/
> >>     <HEAD/
> >>       <TITLE/>/
> >>       <P/>
> >
> > Wow. I was all fired up to call you out on this, and ask you what
> > insane cocaine you were smoking when you main this claim.
> >
> > I was a web developer for many many years and standards were very,
> > very important to me. I thought I knew the specs.
> >
> > And then I ran that by validator.w3.org along with an HTML 4.01 strict
> > DTD, and - to my utter shock and surprise and horror - it turns out
> > you were correct.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing.
> This is indeed technically correct for HTML, but what good is it? We
> could all sit down and write stupid code in any language that is
> technically valid, but useless.



Well I found it interesting.

------art_27611_12668411.1179359049106--