Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > > Substantive arguments? I see only two arguments for keeping it the way > it is now: > * Making silly banks happy. (Their sites are broken. Why should we > deliberately make Mozilla buggy to fix bugs in *their* sites?)
That may be argument enough if banks can't be convinced to do it another way, and if IE doesn't support the other way then they probably can't. Netscape receives no end of complaints along the lines "I like it, but my bank doesn't support it so back to IE for daily use...". Banks may be a small percentage of user page views, but for people who visit them they tend to be important and people usually can't be bothered to switch back and forth. If it comes down to browser A supporting everything well enough vs. browser B which doesn't work on some important sites (to the user) then browser B loses. It's in everyone's best interest that Mozilla gain enough marketshare to prevent site authors from writing it off and creating an IE-only web. Maybe this is another place where a preference to switch behaviors would be worthwhile. -Dan Veditz
