On 14 Mar, Richard Porter wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> On 14 Mar 2009 Rob Kendrick wrote: > > > I invited you to formulate a patch if you thought it so easy;... > > Either trust me that it's not as trivial as you think, or prove > > otherwise by implementing it. > > I'm quite happy to accept your word that it's non-trivial, especially > to bolt on retrospectively. Nothing about a web browser is going to be > trivial. I merely observed that on the face of it, it would not appear > to be a difficult problem. > > What I am saying is that implementing basic html should be a starting > point, not something you think about afterwards, simply because there > are so many sites out there that use it and which render adequately > with all other browsers in that respect. I think Rob's point, quite legitimately, is that NetSurf is an open-source project developed by a group of programmers in their spare time. Anyone can get involved. As such, criticising the priorities, or the work that has been done, isn't on *unless* you are prepared to get involved yourself and do the things better. What you can't do is simply say "I think you should be doing X," or "You've gone about doing Y wrong," while sitting on the sidelines. At least, not in the way that this thread has degenerated into. If you were paying for NetSurf, it would be a different matter. > Compatibility problems arise when background colours are specified in > html and foreground colours in CSS, or vice-versa. Netsurf seems to > guarantee problems for any straight html site with a dark background > colour or image. True. And, as you've now been told many times, the way is open for you to look into the problem and resolve it. Given that they're working on NetSurf for reasons other than (direct)[1] financial reward, the current developers could have all manner of other priorities for their time. 1. That "direct" is in there to deflect the pedants. I can see that having NetSurf on one's CV might be a path to indirect financial benefit at some future time, but such an outlook would simply prioritise a developer towards work that he or she considered would be useful on his or her CV. As such, it just backs up my point. I've no idea what the motivations of any of the NetSurf team are, so that isn't meant to imply anything in particular. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
