JeffM wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I'm no advocate for Micro$oft,
False--at least by proxy, you are.
No. I would praise any browser that coped well with coding errors.
but I recognize when they do something well,
Clueless. Internet Exploder was designed to BREAK the 'Net.
Insults will not advance your cause, and they won't convince me to
rethink my views. All they do is reveal your incompetence as a debater.
As for the purpose of IE, I don't see how "breaking the Net" serves
them. If the Net fails, how will people use their browser?
and coping well with coding errors counts as "doing something well"
in my book.
Your book is clueless. The reason the junk looks better in Internet
Exploder is because it is often built using M$'s crappy development
tools and obviously was "verified" using M$'s browser --and tweaked
"until it looked right" there. This is a throwback to the bad old
days days of "This page best viewed with _____".
Once again, you put words in my mouth and assume views that I do not hold.
I recognize and understand the problems created by clueless webmasters
who think IE is the only browser, or at least the only one they need to
code for. But that wasn't what i was talking about. I was talking about
how browsers cope with coding errors. In a real world made up of
fallible human beings, there will be coding errors. If your browser
punishes the user for those errors by denying access to the content, it
isn't serving the user, and 99% of the time the webmaster doesn't even
know about it because the user doesn't go to the trouble of telling him.
If the user really needs the content, he'll switch to a browser that
displays it in a usable form.
There are certain websites that I need to use on a regular basis, and
they only display in Internet Exploiter. Should I deny myself the use of
their content, or should I hold my nose and use IE? I hold my nose and
use IE. I'm not going to fail at my job out of some pathological
obsession with W3C standards.
These are ignorant people using broken tools and incorrect methods,
thus producing crap. If they were plumbers or electricians, they
would have had their licenses revoked.
JUST BUILD YOUR DAMNED PAGES TO BE **STANDARDS-COMPLIANT**. Those
will then work with *any* browser. If you then need to make tweaks
for BROKEN browsers (version-to-version, M$'s junk won't render the
same), do that AFTERWARDS.
If you need to sniff, sniff for the *edge* cases --the BROKEN,
NON-COMPLIANT browsers.
This is not rocket surgery.
All well and good. Now can you address the /real/ issue I was
discussing, which is what a browser does when a webmaster inadvertently
makes a coding error, not as part of some vast Micro$oft conspiracy, but
simply as a reflection of his human fallibility?
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
