>It's pointless to demand someone else do it better, or more correctly,
or less dumbed-down or more portably, when the nature of the job
to be done, much less the proper way to do it, is subjective to each
of us.

By such an argument it is impossible to define any error -- except that WW’ers do so all the time -- and catch submitters off guard when they do so.

By this standard formatting errors are actually pretty easy to define, because most HTML looks pretty similar when run on one or another of the desktop browsers.  When that same HTML then generates something radically different, “scrambled” and inferior on one of the other target platforms, what one sees then is pretty clearly a formatting bug, which usually can be fixed relatively easily, if one cares to do so.  Of course, some people don’t care to do so, presumably because they do not use one of these other platforms.  If they did, then being asked to try to read “scrambled eggs” presumably *would* bug them.  So, again, the possibility exists to allow HTML to be fixed by people who care, without hurting the people who don’t care, including the submitter – unless the reality is that the submitter is deliberately working to sabotage the HTML so that it will not run correctly on one or the other platforms, in which case fixing the HTML presumably *would* bug them.  But given PG’s charter, that would not seem to be an excuse not to fix the code.