DeMoN LaG wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Thomas) wrote in >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12 Dec 2001: > >>Michael Gratton wrote: >> >>>Matthew Thomas wrote: >>> >>>>Therefore MSIE's behavior is more correct. >>>> >>>Splitting hairs: more *useful*, not more *correct*. How can you be >>>correctly doing something that is undefined? 8) >>>... >>> >>By doing what people want and expect, instead of what they don't >>want or expect. >> > >So because I want my boss to give me a $10/hr raise, and I work so hard >I expect it, it is correct for him to give me a raise? That logic >doesn't pan out. What people want or expect is irrelavent. What the >rules say is what is important. If the rules say nothing, nothing is >correct or incorrect > Seems to me, when there is a defined set of rules for something, anything outside of those rules is extraneous, irrelevant, and inappropriate. Supporting things that do not follow standards encourages people to stray from standards, and results in various incompatibilities - Both Netscape and Microsoft were guilty of this on many occasions during the "browser wars" and it didn't benefit anyone, it created a rift in the internet (this site requires...). If you're going to start adding non-standard features, devise a plan, submit it to the W3C, and when they recommend it, implement it - until then, worry about getting the standards that are already in place implemented and working correctly... There's still a long way to go on that front, and wasting time supporting things that are not standard seems rather wasteful and frivolous (on page rendering - UI is a different story).
That being said, the "correct" thing to do is to get the W3C standards implemented to the fullest. The mozilla team is doing a great job on this, and although they've still got a ways to go, they've done better than anyone else has even considered attempting :) Patrick
