The web runs on tolerance

HTML, XHTML, and Fault Tolerance

• Several comments challenge the article’s framing of HTML’s lax parsing as a “virtue,” arguing it was a practical necessity to avoid breaking the early web, and is now a maintenance burden and attack surface.
• Others counter that standardized fault-tolerant parsing (formalized in HTML5) gives developers consistent cross‑browser behavior and lets non‑experts author pages that still work.
• Some correct history: HTML4 predated XHTML and was less strict; HTML5 later codified detailed error‑handling rules.
• A minority argue that a stricter XML/XHTML model would have simplified tooling and made alternative engines more feasible, instead of entrenching a few complex implementations.

CSS/JavaScript Error Handling

• Disagreement over the claim that CSS/JS are “not tolerant”: some say ignoring invalid CSS lines and allowing many JS runtime errors while the page keeps working is exactly fault tolerance.
• Others note that JS syntax errors can stop an entire script, and that the ecosystem (build tools, packages) is what makes JS feel brittle and hard to approach.

Postel’s Law and Engineering Trade‑offs

• Multiple commenters call Postel’s Law (“be liberal in what you accept…”) a major mistake that produced quirks, inconsistent behavior, and a permanent compatibility tax.
• Counterpoint: forgiving user‑facing code is useful (e.g., accepting varied input formats), as long as canonicalization and strict internal representations are specified.

Technical vs Social “Tolerance”

• Many see the jump from tolerant HTML parsing to human/ideological tolerance as a weak or misleading metaphor, even if they agree with the article’s social message.
• Some call it false equivalence: if lenient parsing is “good,” strict languages like Rust would become analogies for social intolerance, which feels arbitrary.

Diversity, Politics, and Moderation

• Large subthreads debate whether one should care about creators’ identities, systemic discrimination, and whether “everything is political.”
• One side emphasizes inclusion, the paradox of tolerance, and the way slurs and harassment drive away under‑represented contributors.
• The other side stresses meritocracy, freedom of expression, and discomfort with being told to make technical choices based on politics or identity.
• There is also meta‑discussion about online polarization, censorship, and whether platforms/moderation now over‑correct compared to the early, less‑moderated internet.