On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Easwar Hariharan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Probably because,then the user won't care,since he can do his work and > not > > care about standards,openness or anything.If they don't work,he *might* > ,at > > the minimum,use Firefox's Report Broken Website dialog to inform > Mozilla,and > > we can thus reduce the number of IE-only sites out there. > > > > Well we don't need to complain about standards compliance per-say... > Firefox could simply complain that "the designer has made the site > incorrectly and that it may be error prone and hence unsafe to use" or > something to that effect. > > 'Hall of Shame' really doesn't make much difference to most website > designers. Well,what you said about supporting and informing users about the ineptness constitutes of a Hall of Fame.Assuming that Mozilla actually does intervene in the case of broken websites,that intervention goes directly to the web developer and he's seized of the problem. Perhaps a browser that can put up with their crap as well > as educate users about their ineptness may change things a bit. > > That said, most designes also tend to get away with it by saying, > "Don't worry, the site is perfectly fine. It seems to be a bug in > Firefox. See, it works fine in IE". So in that case, it could be a > not-so-good idea to support the crap... +1. :) Regards, Easwar Registered Linux user #442065 -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
