I thought we learned from that experience. Apparently not.
If early browsers displayed an error the first time it came across an <img> tag, instead of just best-effort rendering the page, then every new browser feature would have been smothered in the cradle.
<p>Hello
<br></br>
World!
This is a completely normal usage and some people even author their HTML like this. Granted this is part of the effort to standardize error handling.
That unclosed <p> will auto-close as soon as you start another paragraph or close it's parent element. Likewise this is how I do lists these days:
<ul>
<li> One
<li> Two
</ul>
I would not miss much if I was time-traveled to 1999.
See this, hilariously hosted also by microsoft: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/discussions/funny-sto...
> And then Google built Chrome, and Chrome used Webkit, and it was like Safari, and wanted pages built for Safari, and so pretended to be Safari. And thus Chrome used WebKit, and pretended to be Safari, and WebKit pretended to be KHTML, and KHTML pretended to be Gecko, and all browsers pretended to be Mozilla, and Chrome called itself Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13, and the user agent string was a complete mess, and near useless, and everyone pretended to be everyone else, and confusion abounded.
Could we possibly do away with the User-Agent header, or reset it to a simple “Chrome 150.01”?
Also I’m amused checking mine that the user agents still say “Intel Mac OS X” even on Apple silicon. I guess they were afraid someone’s parser would think we are on PowerPC without that!