Duane Clark wrote:
>
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>
> > Duane Clark wrote:
> >
> >> Sigh.... In my browsing through bugzilla looking for this (I was looking
> >> for "link" rather than "slash") I came across several other cases like
> >> this where the solution has been "don't fix because the link is broken".
> >> I can understand how that might sound like a tempting solution, but I
> >> really believe it is excessively pedantic.
> >>
> >> In this case it is even worse, because according to the bug report, the
> >> behavior exhibited is in fact a deliberate attempt to fix a broken link.
> >> If the URL had been typed by hand, the solution implemented might be
> >> reasonable. But for a link imbedded in a document, I think I can
> >> confidently predict that 95% of the time this is the wrong fix.
> >>
> >> I would hate to see all these people put an incredible amount of work
> >> into Mozilla, and then only the hardcore people use it because it
> >> "doesn't work". It really doesn't matter whether the fault is with the
> >> web page creators or Mozilla, if Mozilla is the only browser that
> >> doesn't work.
> >
> >
> > You mean there are browsers that actually will follow links that only
> > have one slash after http:?
>
> Umm... yea. Netscape 4.76. And without having tried it, I will predict
> that IE5 does too.
>
> > The fault lies with the authors who wrote
> > such obviously wrong URLs. I look at that and think, "The obvious
> > intent was to have two slashes", not, "The obvious intent is to go to
> > /somedir on the same site."
>
> I disagree. It is virtually certain that they tested those links with
> another browser, and obviously they did not use Mozilla. And this will
> with virtual certainty apply in 95% of such cases (actually, I think it
> very likely that number is more like 99%).
>
> > It's utterly unclear, and wrong in either
> > case. The only way to successfully try to work around the invalidity of
> > the link would be to pop up a dialog with something along the lines of
> > "The link you are trying to follow is not constructed correctly. Do you
> > want to attempt to resolve it on this domain or as an absolute URL?"
> > with buttons to those effects.
>
> Obviously I disagree. Again, Mozilla already has a fix, and in my opinion
> it is the wrong fix.
>
> > (My personal preference would be to break backwards compatibility here.
> > One person's pedantic is another person's flat wrong. :) )
>
> The average consumer (and me too) will say it works with NS4.76 or IE5
> but not with Mozilla, and therefore Mozilla is broke. For perfectly good
> evidence of this, take a look at the bug page at how many times this has
> been resubmitted. It is the largest number I have so far stumbled across
> (though I have not looked at a lot).
>
> If all these similar cases I came across in bugzilla remain unfixed,
> then possibly what will happen is people will repeatedly run in to web
> pages that don't work, and may eventually give up and use a browser that
> that handles them the way they expect. Over and over I saw on bugzilla
> that the solution to a broken web page was for the user to contact the
> web administrator and have them fix their broken pages. Yea right.
>
> --
> My real email is akamail.com@dclark (or something like that).
To bolster Mr Clark's Last paragraph. I have a problem with a Boken
image with the Netcenter News letter I receive through Communicator. All
images work excpet for the title image tha's supposed to say Netcenter
News. I periodical reported the problem to several different places
including webmaster of the sending server (CNET). I have yet to even
hear an acknoledgement of my complaints. In checking the page info and
clicking on the line for the image the path to the image is lost. I've
explained the problem.
So the assertion mr clark makes about wab andmistrators not paying
attent ion or even caring what the heck you think is correct.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
