"Nelson Bolyard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Throughout the lifetime of mozilla browsers, there have been innumerable > web > sites that worked with IE but not mozilla, because those web sites' > content > depended on IE behavior, and were not testing with any browser other than > IE. > > Countless users have whined to mozilla with messages saying (in effect) > "your browser sucks because it isn't just like IE". Mozilla's answer has > generally been this: Mozilla products work with all web sites that conform > to the relevant standards. This thread is no different in any respect. > > There are some people for whom the best answer is "use IE". Those are > people who insist that any product that doesn't render their favorite web > site as well as IE is therefore inferior to IE. Those people will never > be > satisfied with anything but IE, and they should stop whining and use IE. > > People who say they really prefer mozilla browsers, but can't or won't use > them because things are rendered differently than IE, are merely advocates > for IE, trying to disguise their advocacy. To such writers, I say, > If you want IE's behavior rather than standards-based behavior, you can > get it all you want, by using IE. Please do. You won't make any friends > here by continuing to belittle mozilla browsers for not being IE.
I have not whined about Firefox, SeaMonkey not being just like IE. If I wanted a browser that was just like IE then I would use it. Why would I be here trying to get something that needs fixing in Firefox fixed if I liked IE? I am trying to discuss a security issue that has nothing to do with how a page looks in Mozilla as opposed to IE. I'm a realist and a practical person. Mozilla developers appear sometimes to have their heads in the clouds. I don't know whether the webmaster of the site goofed or not since the relevant certs are there for IE to collect although evidently the webmaster didn't do any of this to standards...but quick and dirty so to speak or more specifically perhaps I should say that IE collects them in a quick and dirty manner not up to "standards". I am asking why Mozilla expects its users to fix this problem themselves by contacting the webmaster of every page on the internet where the server is misconfigured because the webmaster didn't read his Verisign mail. And what is the individual to do while they wait for the webmaster to finally fix his server? You are being very impractical. I see Fx 2.0 as being dumbed down in some security/privacy areas (that is why I won't use it) and the reasons given for this is that Mozilla has to appeal to the unwashed masses who don't understand many things that were in versions up to 2.0 and thus removed, or made less secure/private in 2.0, or hidden from the GUI. So, using that reasoning why does Mozilla hide behind meeting "standards" as a reason to not fix this particular problem? Don't the unwashed masses that Mozilla wishes to appeal to deserve better? BTW, I have used Mozilla browsers as my default browser since the days of Phoenix and I resent your implying that I am some IE advocate in disguise. Also, for whatever it is worth, the best version of Fx was 0.8. Those were the heady days.... _______________________________________________ dev-security mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
