@alexandra At one point in my history of being a web developer, I would have agreed with you. The problem is that browser makers didn't like that malformed content was *supposed* to fail spectacularly.
Basically, they had to account for the fact that content authors were going to be idiots and that quirks mode was more like default mode.
@alexandra I think, as far as HTML goes, that the current structure system is fine-ish. It could do with some cleanup, but anything could have the same said of it.
There are days that I wish the browser would slap my wrist on encountering markup errors on my content, but given that HTML is still just text, and therefore easily mangled by any number of intermediaries, it’s wise to handle structure errors gracefully.
@firstname.lastname@example.org Personally I still prefer to use the XML version of HTML5 and make sure my pages go through at least one XML parser before they're published, but that's not always practical.
@alexandra for a long time I was all XHTML1.0 on everything. However poor support and flagging demand for XML rigid ness gave way to my embrace of HTML4.01, despite it being older and crustier. It had (at the time) easier semantic meaning to me and widespread support
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.