In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Marc Leger wrote:
>
>>>Frankly I'm finding it a little irritating that people seem to assume
>>>that if it isn't done how IE does it, than it isn't right.
>>>
>>>Very irritating actually.
>>>
>>
>> Awwww...I'm sorry. Didn't mean to hurt your little Mozilla feelers. I
>> guess I would be irrated to if my competitor browser owned 80% of the
>> market. But, who I had to blame....was myself. Netscape f'd up, and you
>> pro-Netscapers know it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Who says that because we're pro-Mozilla means that we're pro-Netscape?
I do. You have to be by definition: Mozilla == Netscape. Or hadn't you
noticed that the name of this newsgroup is NETSCAPE.public.mozilla.general,
and that the vast majority of people working on Mozilla are Netscape/AOL/Time
Warner employees paid to do so? Don't kid yourself.
>There are people here who don't have positive opinions about Netscape,
>but still give Mozilla their enthusiastic support.
>
Yeah, there's a lot of gullible people out there.
>Anyway, IE is fairly standards compliant so it renders things largely
>correct, but still has bugs prevents certain things from being rendered
>as specified by W3C's specs.
Indeed it does. Thank God that Mozilla is bug-free.
BAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!
> I am rather irritated also that some people
>assume that just because IE renders it, it's the way it should be
>rendered.
Welcome to what we refer to as "the real world". IE's Mozilla's competition
(browser wise anyway). If Mozilla can't render web pages as well as IE,
guess who wins?
<Insert "but the web pages aren't standards-compliant!" squealing and the
associated ignoring of Mozilla here.>
> In most cases yes, but not all cases. Last I checked, IE had a
>really strange interpretation of using certain relative font sizes with CSS.
>
Is there a nice table somewhere comparing the standards compliance of Mozilla,
IE 6.0, NC4.77, etc? With all the "Mozilla is (maybe someday going to
posibbly be) the most standards-compliant browser ever!" squealing going on,
you'd think that'd be one of the first things Netscape I mean Mozilla would
want to get going.
>Anyway, things like textboxes are really trivial.
Apparently so is insane memory usage, and commie graphics. Unfortunately they
all add up to nobody using Mozilla.
> I think it's too
>common of an assumption that every single aspect of a web page can and
>should be controlled with precision down to the pixel. Things like
>images and table cell widths can be controlled as such, but we're also
>talking about different operating systems that interprets fonts
>differently and have their own widget sets, so not everything can be
>controlled down to such precision.
>
Yet Mozilla rolls its own common controls for precisely that reason. Go
figure.
>--
>Alex <:3)~~
>http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/
>
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
