On Jun 27, 9:21 am, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, that doesn't follow, because they are _quirks_mode_ compatibility bugs. > > If someone suggests putting compatibility fixes of that sort into > standards mode, there's normally a pretty big pushback. The reason we > _have_ quirks mode is so that we can also have a standards-compliant > mode which does the right thing.
I think it does follow, but I apparently wasn't clear on why: Web standards currently exist, and have for a while. Clearly we want authors to create pages using standards, as opposed to continuing to use non-standard pages. Given that, the arguments for and against quirks mode are essentially: Pro: There are pages out there, both old and new, that are not standard-compliant, and not rendering them in a useful way for the user creates a bad user experience for users of Gecko-based browsers. Good quirks-mode rendering lets users use more web pages. Con: If compatibility of pages that are not standards compliant is good, then authors have little incentive to fix their broken pages. Good quirks-mode rendering reduces pressure on authors to do the right thing. Good ways of doing client-capability-detection exist, and have for a while. Clearly we want authors to use them, as opposed to continuing the practice of checking the browser name. Given that, the arguments for putting Firefox in other Gecko user agents are: Pro: There are page out there, both old and new, that are looking for the word Firefox, and not providing it creates a bad user experience for users of non-Firefox Gecko-based browsers. Adding it lets users use more web pages. Con: If non-Firefox browsers pass the UA checks, then authors have little incentive to fix their broken pages. Adding it reduces pressure on authors to do the right thing. Those are very much parallel, and I really don't think I've misrepresented either case. > If we only had one mode, it would be much worse for the Internet's standards > compliance. Agreed, but the analogous action to "one mode" for us to take would be to remove the Gecko string and version from our UA while adding Firefox so that sniffing for the word Firefox was the *only* way to detect Camino. What we are doing will provide a UA that works when sniffed the recommended way, or when sniffed the wrong way. That seems very much the same as proving an engine which can render both standards-compliant content and non-compliant content. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
