Apparently IE doesn’t need to follow the robustness principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
In fact, you can make quite a case that "robustness" as defined that way is responsible for the horrible mess that HTML and cross-browser compatibility is these days. For instance, if you improperly close tags, or overlap tags, IE (and others I assume) will dutifully go about trying to figure out what you meant: being very "robust" in their interpretation of input outside the spec.
By implementing behaviour outside the spec (being "robust"), you are implicitly extending the spec, and every other browser has to implement unspecified behaviour in the same way.
Fun times.
If your TV crashed would you blame the TV program you were watching at the time?
People know the difference between software and content. Content should never be able to crash software.
I disagree with you TV example, however. If the same TV show repeatedly crashed one of the most popular TV models, consumers would blame the show.
Two characters are in a race: one to build an impervious record player, the other to design a record that - when played - sets up feedback in the record player sufficient to destroy it.
It's a stunningly simple intro to a fairly deep topic: NP completeness, input validation, etc.
I'm 99% sure that it was something invalid in the closed captioning.
I'm not positive, but I believe that it's possible for TV shows to crash TVs, which is why there are standards in that specify what kind of content you are allowed to broadcast:
people should know the difference, but they don't.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think Chrome would be anything near what it is today without all of the google.com referrals.