On 30 Sep 2001 19:16:35 GMT, Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jay posts to a number of peer support forums. Only a drooling >idiot would expect him to memorize every single post in every >single group and have the ability to respond to points raised >in other threads. I don't expect that. I do expect that if Jay accuses me of ranting without posting examples, that Jay should first verify that I indeed did NOT post examples. I don't expect anyone to memorize everything, but I do expect people to at least make some really minor effort to verify an accusation before they put it in writing. >> Scrolldown menus don't work properly (i.e. the mouse goes >> anywhere NEAR them, and they scroll, making links underneath >> them impossible to access), as in: >> http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kungfujoe >This page doesn't validate: >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdaficionado.com%2Fdvds.html%3Fcat%3D1%26id%3Dkungfujoe&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline >If it were properly coded, it would be more likely to work. That may be true, but the fact remains that it renders fine in Netscape 4 and IE. I'll point this out to the webmaster, but in the real world, whether or not something works with the established standard interfaces (that would be NS and IE) is more important than whether it strictly adheres to the specifications. In an ideal world, it would be otherwise, but in this world, it's more effective to write a program that is tolerant when the rules are bent, instead of crying foul. BTW, the site you quote doesn't even attempt to validate this page, because it's missing the <!Doctype> tag that, required or not, web browsers apparently have no trouble ignoring them. When I put that back in manually, the errors given in a validation attempt are mostly trivial things that browsers generally ignore without any trouble, like quotes in tags. So, while they are worth fixing (if the webmaster is responsive, hopefully they will be), they're most likely NOT causing this problem.. which brings us back to where we started - a deficiency in Mozilla's ability to interpret this JavaScript menu as well as the de facto standard browsers do.. >> I should add that when I talk about a program's overall >> stability, I don't JUST talk about how often it crashes and >> brings up Dr. Watson, but also how well or how poorly it >> does the things it's supposed to. >Then you are using the word incorrectly, and should expect >that people will misunderstand you. Stability should be used >specifically to describe how "stable" it is, that it, how >often does it crash or lock up. A structure doesn't have to fall over to be considered unstable. Unplanned amounts of wobbling are sufficient. :) As I see it, non-fatal errors (those include bugs, not just things that bring up error messages) are to wobbling as crashing is to collapsing. Anyhow, when I look back at my original message, I see that I was specific enough to remain within your rigorous linguistic confines, whatever my thought process may have been, which makes your scolding kinda irrelevant. :-) Erik Harris eharris1@rocheste$.$$.com http://w3.to/erik ICQ: 2610172 Chinese Martial Arts Assoc @ Cornell: http://w3.to/CMAAC/ To avoid Spam-bots, my address at the top is INCORRECT. Change each dollar sign to an "r".
