JeffM wrote:
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.
It's /part/ of what's happening with IE, but you're choosing to ignore
it so you can focus on W3C compliance. Both phenomena are occurring.
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 suppose. But the last time I checked, they were steadily losing market
share, so I'm not worried.
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.
A reasonable motorcycle driver will choose not to hit the wall, even
though it's not supposed to be there. How crazy would it be for a driver
to drive straight into the wall and be seriously injured because it
shouldn't be there?
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.
What does that have to do with the price of beans? A poorly coded
website isn't a product liability issue for me as a visitor.
I hate sloppy work and I don't think much of apologists for sloppy
work.
There you go again. I'm not apologizing for sloppy work. But I suppose
you've heard so many people do it that you imagine it even when it's not
said.
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.
There is no "other vendor" for this data. These are public-records
websites operated by government agencies, so I have two choices: I can
use IE or I can do without the data. You seem to want me to fail in my
job in order to make a quixotic statement about W3C compliance. No, thanks.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of "ground rules".
<http://google.com/search?q=define:ground-rules>
I understand the term perfectly. What I don't understand is why you feel
the need to beat me over the head for making a reasonable effort to cope
with the real world as it exists. It isn't my job or my mission in life
to prowl the Web looking for noncompliant sites and then notify their
webmasters that I won't be back. YMMV.
[...]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.
As a visitor to such a site, I don't give a $#!+ about all that. I want
to view the content, and if my browser lets me, fine.
In a world where money has become the end-all and be-all,
the answer is quite obvious.
DON'T PAY FOR POOR PERFORMANCE.
Who's paying? I'm not.
...and stop patronizing those with bad business models.
...and let them KNOW you are going elsewhere--and WHY.
Who's paying? I'm not.
