>>Arne wrote: >>>Bing Map[...] >>>There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing. >>> >JeffM wrote: >>There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers; >>JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES. > Arne wrote: >Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing? > You're too easy on developers who don't know WFT they're doing. The *DEFAULT* should be **serve up a compliant page**.
Stupid M$ even treats the W3C Validator like it has 3 heads: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.bing.com/maps/ (Look at the "Address:" bar on that page.) >All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff >but at least they give the user an option to enter any way, >other simply throw you out! > So, instead of being rock-head stupid, they're just bonehead stupid. WEBMASTERS, JUST SERVE UP *COMPLIANT* PAGES BY DEFAULT. If you want to sniff, then sniff for the **broken** browsers (y'know, the ones Micros~1 builds) and only treat **those** as "special" (as in "retarted"). BTW, you bunch of dim bulbs who can't seem to get it right http://geckoisgecko.org/ _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
