Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >I would praise any browser that coped well with coding errors. > ...except that's not what's happening with Internet Exploder. If you shoot at a blank wall then draw concentric circles around your best grouping, it doesn't make you a sharpshooter.
>JeffM wrote: >>Clueless. Internet Exploder was designed to BREAK the 'Net. >> >Insults will not advance your cause > There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. >I don't see how "breaking the Net" serves them. >If the Net fails, how will people use their browser? > Simple. They made sure the remaining shards fit *their* junk. You have to understand that M$ sees the world as a demolition derby where there can be only one winner. >I was talking about how browsers cope with coding errors. > ...in the same way that motorcycles "cope" with brick walls in the middle of the road. They're not supposed to be there. If you start with a valid premise, the answers are simple. >In a real world made up of fallible human beings, >there will be coding errors. > In a world full of bozos who don't know how to do their jobs and other boss nincompoops who don't know the difference between shoddy work and minimally-acceptable work, --yet are paying for that shoddy work-- yes, there will be lots of "coding errors". I mentioned plumbers, electricians, and licenses. That should be a clue for what I think of as a starting point. (The gal that does your wife's nails had to pass a test, ferchrisake.) >If your browser punishes the user for those errors >by denying access to the content, it isn't serving the user, > ...and if your motorcycle ran off the road and slammed into a wall because the bozos that built the bike did that wrong, you'd sue them for everything they were worth. I hate sloppy work and I don't think much of apologists for sloppy work. >There are certain websites that I need to use on a regular basis, >and they only display in Internet Exploiter. > ...then **USE** IE. ...or find another vendor. You seem to have a problem with the concept of "ground rules". http://google.com/search?q=define:ground-rules >>[...]ignorant people[...] >> >[...]when a webmaster inadvertently makes a coding error > If he was doing his job **properly**, he would have **validated** his code. If his employer had been doing HIS job properly, HE would have spotted any validation errors --and the guy making the mistakes wouldn't have gotten paid. In a world where money has become the end-all and be-all, the answer is quite obvious. DON'T PAY FOR POOR PERFORMANCE. ...and stop patronizing those with bad business models. ...and let them KNOW you are going elsewhere--and WHY. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
