Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 17.09.2009 00:04, John Boyle wrote: --- Original Message --- To Seamonkey users: Why on earth are we worried whether IE works at ALL? I thought this was a Seamonkey support group, what is going on here? Can somebody tell me? :-( penis-envy!! :-D -- Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion www.ufaq.org Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 16.09.2009 23:30, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: --- Original Message --- There we have it. You don't understand Point #1about the Internet. The fact that we disagree does not make me clueless, it just means I have a different perspective. I could just as easily say that because /you/ don't conform to /my/ specs, /you/ must be clueless. What would that get me? I know, I know, more insults. Not very persuasive. In a nutshell, a good site designer/programmer will opt for cross-browser compatibility period. Fact: The company I managed was more IE-centric than anything else on their website. When I came on board, I demanded cross-browser compatibility to increase web-sales. After the revamp, sales jumped from 1.5 million to over 8 / month .. 'nuff said. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion www.ufaq.org Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 09/17/09 03:32, BeeNeR wrote: On or about 9/16/2009 5:47 PM, Mark Hansen typed the following: On 09/16/09 12:45, JeffM wrote: Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. Good grief. Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market? Many, many web sites do not have good HTML. Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market until all the site developers get their act together and start writing good HTML code? The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web, you need to be able to work in today's web. M$ is NOT God. Standards have been made. W3C uses those standards. Many browsers use those standards. M$ and some web creators do not follow those standards. Yes, they are not laws, but if all would abide by the standards there would be no problem and all browsers would work without problems. If all drivers followed all the laws, there would be fewer accidents. Those are all true statements. I agree with them 100%. What does that have to do with whether or not SM should ignore poorly-designed pages? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
BeeNeR wrote: On or about 9/16/2009 5:47 PM, Mark Hansen typed the following: On 09/16/09 12:45, JeffM wrote: Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. Good grief. Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market? Many, many web sites do not have good HTML. Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market until all the site developers get their act together and start writing good HTML code? The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web, you need to be able to work in today's web. M$ is NOT God. Standards have been made. W3C uses those standards. Many browsers use those standards. M$ and some web creators do not follow those standards. Yes, they are not laws, but if all would abide by the standards there would be no problem and all browsers would work without problems. If all drivers followed all the laws, there would be fewer accidents. Probably. But they don't, and a driver who assumes they will is in for a rude awakening, most likely in a hospital the day after their accident. A real-world driver must be prepared for such violations, and even expect them in certain contexts. Browsers must do the same. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: In my work I need to monitor local deaths at this site: http://www.montcopa.org/registerofwillsorphanscourt/rwocviewer/ Ah. Clerical staff. That explains a lot. It's hard enough for a technical staff to implement the specs that the customer's contract list. When the marketing boys get their fingers into things and start expanding the *want* list, things get exponentially more difficult. The job of a browser: Take the HTML code on an HTML page and translate it into a corresponding display on the screen (or do whatever is asked by that STANDARD code). What you want: Besides rendering STANDARD code, make provisions in the browser's codebase for all 237 ways that a clumsy page builder can screw that up. Now multiply that by the number of HTML instructions available. Like I said: exponentially more difficult. If you had ever done any technical development work, you would see what a burden that puts on the browser developers --and it is completely UNNECESSARY. A method to resolve this: Have the browser developers incorporate the HTML Validator extension into the core code. When a crap site is encountered, a box pops up. If the page has 20 errors, the box is small. If the page has 20 errors 100, the box is larger. If the page has 100 errors, the box covers the screen and says THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PAGE IS A MORON. YOU WILL NEED TO USE A WEB BROWSER DEVELOPED BY MORONS TO VIEW IT. There. Problem solved. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: JeffM wrote: ...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: This isn't about Microsoft. Of course it's about M$. It's about their dominant position in the software marketplace. It's about M$ drones using M$'s ANTI-compliant tools. It's about those drones thinking that if M$ does it, it must be right. It's about those drones using FrontPage to make NON-compliant pages and using Internet Exploder to validate those. It's about unnecessarily sniffing for the more-compliant browsers instead of sniffing for the piece-of-junk browser(s). None of these things will change if you put your nose in the air and tell end users they can't use your browser for all pages, just the ones you think are good enough. The marketplace doesn't work that way, and wishing won't make it so. Sure, Micro$oft is evil. So? A zebra thinks lions are evil, but that won't make them go away, and it won't save them from getting eaten. You can rail all you want at the gods or the stars or whoever you think is responsible, but that doesn't affect reality on the ground. It's about whether Mozilla develops a reputation among end users for offering a convenient and efficient way of viewing web pages. Correction: The job of a Mozilla-compatible browser is to render **HTML** pages. The crap in question IS NOT AN HTML PAGE--in HUNDREDS of places. That may be your narrow technical definition, but if you get out of your cubicle and talk to real users in the real world you'll see it's very different. How would you feel if you went into an auto dealer and he proudly announced that his car only ran on straight paved roads in the daytime? I'll bet your favorite pet is a koala. Eats only eucalyptus leaves, and fresh ones at that. Put it in a garden full of yummy fruits and vegetables but no eucalyptus, and it starves. they blame the browser, not the webmaster. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't want stupid people on the team. On the contrary; I want people on the team who can recognize stupidity --and I want them to do the right thing when they see that stupidity: bitch at the guilty party--or even better, at his boss. Straw man. I'm not saying put stupid people on the development team. But the vast majority of your end users -- like it or not -- are what you call stupid people. This kind of arrogance is what got Apple consigned to a 10% niche of the market while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%. You sound like one of those from the **We can't make them feel bad about themselves, let's just lower the bar** generation, or maybe you're even younger--one of those having the bar lowered. Insulting me won't solve your problem, and it won't get you market share. Pleasing customers is the only thing that will. Insulting customers doesn't get you market share, and designing a product that intentionally fails one of their primary criteria won't either. Oh, and BTW, insulting me shows the bankruptcy of your argument. If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to do that. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: It reminds me of a conversation where someone asks, Do you know the way to San Jose? What if he asked oD yuo kwno teh awy ot anS Jseo? I would still know what he wanted Apparently, you're smarter than the average bear. Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine. Freudian slip? It's rendering engine. To rend is to tear apart. I actually understand the rendering engine's job better than you give me credit for. I understand how it works in the real world, not in the lab where all the tests are perfectly controlled. software isn't subject to such emotions; it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without complaining. The job of an HTML rendering engine is to render HTML. What _you_ would like it to do is render NON-HTML --and do it in the exact way that the junk product does.[1] What _you_ would like to see is a race to the bottom where all of the more-compliant browsers behave like the bottom-of-the-barrel browser. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer That's just silly--and it's NOT what's needed. Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted crap I'd be using Internet Exploiter. I'm a Netscape fan from way back, and I'm still here more than a decade after Microsoft declared war on us. When the Chixulub meteor struck 65 million years ago, the world went to hell, and only the animals who could adapt to very difficult conditions survived. Part of that meant eating nonstandard foods and living in spartan accommodations (no HBO for these guys). They didn't /order/ the food, but they had to eat something, and those that did survived. What's needed is: 1) Get page builders to use the W3C Validator. 2) Get employers to use the Validator **BEFORE** they pay for services. 3) Get the Acid4 test page built and _publicize_ that to show even more what a piece of crap the dominant player is. (If
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: ...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: This isn't about Microsoft. JeffM wrote: Of course it's about M$. [. . .] The job of a Mozilla-compatible browser is to render **HTML** pages. The crap in question IS NOT AN HTML PAGE--in HUNDREDS of places. That may be your narrow technical definition The W3C gets to say what is HTML and what isn't. Over 400 times, they say the page ISN'T HTML. How would you feel if you went into an auto dealer and he proudly announced that his car only ran on straight paved roads in the daytime? Wrong analogy. Better analogy: You take your showroom-stock minivan --which works just fine as a grocery-getter-- and enter it into the Baja 500. After you tear it all to hell, you expect the dealership to fix it under warranty. Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. they blame the browser, not the webmaster. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't want stupid people on the team. On the contrary; I want people on the team who can recognize stupidity --and I want them to do the right thing when they see that stupidity: bitch at the guilty party--or even better, at his boss. Straw man. Nope. Goes to the heart of the issue. I'm not saying put stupid people on the development team. Nor am I. But the vast majority of your end users -- like it or not -- are what you call stupid people. The job of Mozilla fanboys is NOT to advocate to break the browser such that it will render any grade of crap; it is to **educate** the ignorant as to the existance of that crap. This kind of arrogance is what got Apple consigned to a 10% niche of the market Apple has exactly the market they want. ...and by some figures, Linux's share exceeds Apple's. All of that is a red herring. More on non-M$ environments below. while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%. M$ got their wealth illicitly http://google.com/search?q=cache:w100CwTtO_MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish+*-*-v-Microsoft-*-trial+and.the.Internet+Netscape+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-monopolize-a-*-category+text+*-not-*-*-*-*-*-*-part-of-the-standard+Java+*-*-competitors-that-do-not-*-*-support-the-*-extensions+*-*-Department-*-Justice+*-describe-Microsoft's-strategy That topic is very much in keeping with this theme. Unlike your Machiavellian advocacy, that is NOT a model I want to emulate. ...and if proper application of STANDARDS had been executed (anti-trust enforcement by US Congressional commitees, US FTC, US DoJ, EU regulators), M$ would be just another face in the crowd. You sound like one of those from the **We can't make them feel bad about themselves, let's just lower the bar** generation, or maybe you're even younger--one of those having the bar lowered. Insulting me won't solve your problem, I call 'em like I see 'em. If you see it as an insult, so be it. and it won't get you market share. I'm not looking for market share at the expense of STANDARDS. If you look at e.g. Norway and Brazil, you'll see the right approach. Pleasing customers is the only thing that will. The customer is always right is crap. Some customers are idiots. Idiots especially aren't worth the effort. (See Apple, above.) Insulting customers doesn't get you market share, See educate, above. ...and There are none so blind as those who will not see. This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards. and designing a product that intentionally fails one of their primary criteria won't either. Regarding their primary criteria: See idiots, above. See also educate. Regarding fails: See STANDARDS, above. See also rendering HTML insulting me shows the bankruptcy of your argument. Once someone ignores the core issue (STANDARDS), the argument is over. All that is left at that point is ad hominem. If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to do that. If you would quit evading the core issue, I wouldn't need to do that. Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine. I actually understand the rendering engine's job better than you give me credit for. Not if you keep insisting that everyone does things the M$ way and ignores W3C. I understand how it works in the real world, not in the lab where all the tests are perfectly controlled. Again: The race to the bottom--with M$ setting the pace. M$ does NOT set the standards; W3C sets the standards. ...and in the supreme irony, M$ is a member of W3C and constantly ignores--or, more accurately-- purposely deviates from those standards. ...and my solution is to boycott sites created by idiots; I don't seem to be missing significant content. software isn't subject to such emotions; it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without complaining. The job of an HTML rendering engine is to render HTML. What _you_ would like it to do is render NON-HTML --and do it in the exact way that the junk product does.[1] What _you_ would like to see is
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 09/16/09 12:45, JeffM wrote: Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. Good grief. Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market? Many, many web sites do not have good HTML. Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market until all the site developers get their act together and start writing good HTML code? The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web, you need to be able to work in today's web. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Mark Hansen wrote: On 09/16/09 12:45, JeffM wrote: Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. Good grief. Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market? Many, many web sites do not have good HTML. Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market until all the site developers get their act together and start writing good HTML code? The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web, you need to be able to work in today's web. Stop the war, please :-) I think, that i have found why using http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html putting london in the zone and clicking [Ok] show the map with my SM and ... did not show the map with IE8. I have seen in IE8 - Tools - Internet Options - Security - Custom Level under Miscellaneous .. a lot of allowance are disabled. Because i did not understand all this stuff .. i will not try ...allowing because i did not know which one :-) I hope that when SM2 will be installed on my pc, that this site will continue to work as before with 1.1.14. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: JeffM wrote: The job of a Mozilla-compatible browser is to render **HTML** pages. The crap in question IS NOT AN HTML PAGE--in HUNDREDS of places. That may be your narrow technical definition The W3C gets to say what is HTML and what isn't. Over 400 times, they say the page ISN'T HTML. The Académie achtémalaise? Fine. It's not perfect HTML. Your solution is to throw up your hands and refuse to play. I wonder how much market share /that/ will get you. How would you feel if you went into an auto dealer and he proudly announced that his car only ran on straight paved roads in the daytime? Wrong analogy. Better analogy: You take your showroom-stock minivan --which works just fine as a grocery-getter-- and enter it into the Baja 500. After you tear it all to hell, you expect the dealership to fix it under warranty. Who on earth is talking about repairs??? I know perfectly well that your showroom-stock minivan won't run in the Baja 500. If I go down there, I'll take a tougher vehicle, one that will take everything I can throw at it. It might be a bumpier ride, but I'll still be running at the finish line. But the vast majority of your end users -- like it or not -- are what you call stupid people. The job of Mozilla fanboys is NOT to advocate to break the browser such that it will render any grade of crap; it is to **educate** the ignorant as to the existance of that crap. Who's advocating breaking it? Not me. I'm saying it should be able to handle whatever crap real-world webmasters throw at it. That's /toughening/ it, not sabotaging it. This kind of arrogance is what got Apple consigned to a 10% niche of the market Apple has exactly the market they want. ...and by some figures, Linux's share exceeds Apple's. All of that is a red herring. More on non-M$ environments below. If measures of success are a red herring to you, I'm willing to bet you're not very successful. while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%. M$ got their wealth illicitly http://google.com/search?q=cache:w100CwTtO_MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish+*-*-v-Microsoft-*-trial+and.the.Internet+Netscape+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-monopolize-a-*-category+text+*-not-*-*-*-*-*-*-part-of-the-standard+Java+*-*-competitors-that-do-not-*-*-support-the-*-extensions+*-*-Department-*-Justice+*-describe-Microsoft's-strategy That topic is very much in keeping with this theme. Unlike your Machiavellian advocacy, that is NOT a model I want to emulate. Machiavellian? I'm not saying we should connive to take over the world. I'm saying we should build a better mousetrap. In some ways we already are, and those features (e.g., security) are why I'm here. But there's still room for improvement, unless we take the attitude that the world should adapt to us. ...and if proper application of STANDARDS had been executed (anti-trust enforcement by US Congressional commitees, US FTC, US DoJ, EU regulators), M$ would be just another face in the crowd. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Al Gore should have been our president for the last eight years, and Dick Cheney belongs at the end of a rope. I've got enough wishes like that to support a whole army of beggars, each with his own personal stable. Pleasing customers is the only thing that will. The customer is always right is crap. Some customers are idiots. Idiots especially aren't worth the effort. (See Apple, above.) Every market has a few idiots, and I've turned away a few horrendous customers now and then myself. But if most of the market is idiots, the problem is not with the market, it's with your attitude. This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards. I'm not insisting on /supporting/ non-standards. I'm saying we should live in the real world, not whine about how imperfect it is and wish for a fantasy world that will never come. insulting me shows the bankruptcy of your argument. Once someone ignores the core issue (STANDARDS), the argument is over. All that is left at that point is ad hominem. If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to do that. If you would quit evading the core issue, I wouldn't need to do that. I don't agree that it's the core issue. For me, success is the core issue. Do we render pages well? Do we cope with whatever the real world throws at us? Do we make our customers' lives easier, more pleasant, more efficient? Or are we building a reputation as the browser that wouldn't? Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine. I actually understand the rendering engine's job better than you give me credit for. Not if you keep insisting that everyone does things the M$ way and ignores W3C. Once again, you put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about doing things the MS way, I didn't /insist/ that /everyone/ do anything. HTML and the Internet community have evolved to the point where HTML behaves like a natural language. No one person or body
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 09/16/09 15:42, JeffM wrote: JeffM wrote: Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML. Again: Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job. Mark Hansen wrote: Good grief. Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market? Asked and answered. Many, many web sites do not have good HTML. Specifically, those sites have code built for Internet Exploder. If you want to access a page *built* for Internet Exploder, just USE Internet Exploder. Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market until all the site developers get their act together and start writing good HTML code? The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web, you need to be able to work in today's web. aka Bend over and take it. aka Just surrender to The Borg. I choose to boycott garbage sites. Yes, exactly. You can choose to boycott such sites. To suggest that SeaMonkey needn't worry about such sites is short sighted, IMHO. If you can't find the content elsewhere, register your complaint --with those who have the power to change things. Coming here and complaining isn't going to change anything about their broken site. I assure you that the browser developers aren't interested in making the browser M$-compliant. That would be stupid. I think browser developers would want to encourage site developers to do the right thing, but ultimately, they would want users to use their browser. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there are a lot of site developers out there that just don't know what they're doing (with regard to cross-browser support). The average user isn't going to care whether the site is developed according to standards. They only care that the site works when they access it with their client. They will ultimately choose the browser that works on the site they frequent. If Gecko refuses to work on these sites, these users simply won't choose Gecko-based browsers. You can certainly argue that Gecko-based browsers just don't need that segment of user. You may be right. I think Gecko-based browsers can use all the users they can get - lest they go the way of the dinosaurs. Best Regards, ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Who on earth is talking about repairs??? You are. You want Gecko browsers to repair broken sites. Again: THAT IS **NOT** THE BROWSER'S JOB. The job of the browser is to render what exists --not to make weird quesses abut what coulda/shouda/mighta. JeffM wrote: The job of Mozilla fanboys is NOT to advocate to break the browser such that it will render any grade of crap; it is to **educate** the ignorant as to the existance of that crap. Who's advocating breaking it? Besides un-breaking sites, would you also like it to dance a jig? It's hard enough to make the damned thing render **HTML** faithfully. Now you want it to make guess about junk code **and** do it the same way as M$'s guesses. Just clueless. Not me. Clueless. I'm saying it should be able to handle whatever crap real-world webmasters throw at it. That's /toughening/ it, not sabotaging it. Years ago, I gave a technical document to someone to type. He was the only guy with a computer--because he was hogging it. He was not in the mood to be a typist, so he edited my document for brevity. THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED OF HIM. This is what you are expecting the browser to do, to transform something --rather than to do its job and render what exists. The only appropriate alternative for handling broken code would be to display the RAW code--and not try to render it. If measures of success are a red herring to you, I'm willing to bet you're not very successful. If success means criminal activity, I'm not interested. If success means NOT doing the job according to the specification, I'm not interested. Again, you seem to be of a generation where cheats and shortcuts are the norm. I have already called this Machiavellian. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%. M$ got their wealth illicitly http://google.com/search?q=cache:w100CwTtO_MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish+*-*-v-Microsoft-*-trial+and.the.Internet+Netscape+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-monopolize-a-*-category+text+*-not-*-*-*-*-*-*-part-of-the-standard+Java+*-*-competitors-that-do-not-*-*-support-the-*-extensions+*-*-Department-*-Justice+*-describe-Microsoft's-strategy That topic is very much in keeping with this theme. Unlike your Machiavellian advocacy, that is NOT a model I want to emulate. Machiavellian? I'm not saying we should connive to take over the world. It's obvious you would like this browser to to be the same as M$'s; that is the ONLY way to achieve the goal you have set. That means following M$'s lead. Really dumb idea. [...]if most of the market is idiots, the problem is not with the market, it's with your attitude. The solution for that market of idiots already exists. It's called Internet Exploder. The sites were built for that tool; just use that tool --or boycott the broken site. This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards. I'm not insisting on /supporting/ non-standards. Clueless. Again: Un-breaking bad code is NOT the job of the browser. You would like to break something that's not broken in order to make something that IS broken look right. That is just dumb--but why should I expect different from you; you don't understand the problem. You continue to think that THE BOWSER is the problem. I don't agree that the network needs to be homogeneous, There we have it. You don't understand Point #1about the Internet. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Who on earth is talking about repairs??? You are. You want Gecko browsers to repair broken sites. Again: THAT IS **NOT** THE BROWSER'S JOB. Uh, no, for the umpteenth time, I don't. I want them to produce a reasonable rendering that the user can view and understand. That's not repairing, that's coping. The job of the browser is to render what exists --not to make weird quesses abut what coulda/shouda/mighta. Says you, the sole arbiter of truth. JeffM wrote: The job of Mozilla fanboys is NOT to advocate to break the browser such that it will render any grade of crap; it is to **educate** the ignorant as to the existance of that crap. Who's advocating breaking it? Besides un-breaking sites, would you also like it to dance a jig? It's hard enough to make the damned thing render **HTML** faithfully. Now you want it to make guess about junk code **and** do it the same way as M$'s guesses. Just clueless. Not me. Clueless. Insults do not an argument make. This tells us more about you than about the browser issue. I'm saying it should be able to handle whatever crap real-world webmasters throw at it. That's /toughening/ it, not sabotaging it. Years ago, I gave a technical document to someone to type. He was the only guy with a computer--because he was hogging it. He was not in the mood to be a typist, so he edited my document for brevity. THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED OF HIM. This is what you are expecting the browser to do, to transform something --rather than to do its job and render what exists. The only appropriate alternative for handling broken code would be to display the RAW code--and not try to render it. All or nothing? Not a very sophisticated program. I remember I had programs like that in the DOS days, if you didn't feed them precisely the eucalyptus leaves they wanted, they died. A good program, like a good employee, copes with challenges and gets the job done. If measures of success are a red herring to you, I'm willing to bet you're not very successful. If success means criminal activity, I'm not interested. If success means NOT doing the job according to the specification, I'm not interested. Again, you seem to be of a generation where cheats and shortcuts are the norm. I have already called this Machiavellian. More insults? You really need to come up with a better argument, because you're not convincing anyone. Any idiot can do a rigid job according to specification. I don't hire idiots. It's obvious you would like this browser to to be the same as M$'s; that is the ONLY way to achieve the goal you have set. That means following M$'s lead. Really dumb idea. If their product can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and I want our product to do so too, does that mean we must emulate their technique? It doesn't follow. [...]if most of the market is idiots, the problem is not with the market, it's with your attitude. The solution for that market of idiots already exists. It's called Internet Exploder. The sites were built for that tool; just use that tool --or boycott the broken site. I do use their product when ours fails me. But I'd rather use our product; on balance I like it better. You're saying I shouldn't do that, I should just deprive myself of that content. Well, no, I don't have to observe your personal boycott. I find a way to get the job done, and if that means using Internet Exploiter sometimes, well, that's the price I pay for getting the job done. In my work I need to monitor local deaths at this site: http://www.montcopa.org/registerofwillsorphanscourt/rwocviewer/ I can display the page in SM, but the search button doesn't do anything, so it's useless. I don't care that the W3C validator found 43 errors, I just want to do my job and search the decedents database. So I use IE. Excuse the hell out of me. This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards. I'm not insisting on /supporting/ non-standards. Clueless. Again: Un-breaking bad code is NOT the job of the browser. You would like to break something that's not broken in order to make something that IS broken look right. That is just dumb--but why should I expect different from you; you don't understand the problem. You continue to think that THE BOWSER is the problem. No, I think the browser has the potential to be part of the /solution/. If you're a cop investigating a murder and one of the suspects doesn't speak too very good the English, do you give up and declare the case closed, or do you find a way to interrogate him? You find a way to get the job done. Nothing has to be broken. My ability to understand pidgin English doesn't prevent me from understanding or producing well-formed native English. That's what our browser should do, find a way to get the job done. Render the page. Serve the user. A better browser is one that renders more pages, not one that turns up its nose
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:46:45 +0200, /Ray_Net/: http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html It's ok with my SM 1.1.14 ... so SM is not punished. But you tell us, using IE8, about [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] This is also ok for me at the load of the page... However the page did not work...Have you tried to change the location, per exemple put philadelphia in the zone, then click on Ok Is it still working ? I see the following error in the IE script console: 'which' is null or not an object coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html, line 276 character 34 The script tries to access a non-standard 'event.which' [1] property which is not part of the IE DOM [2]. Key events is not well standardized area, in my observations. The only common key event property is the 'keyCode' which behavior might differ between implementations (IE vs. Mozilla), also. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/event.which [2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535863(VS.85).aspx -- Stanimir ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Ray_Net wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Paul Hartman wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ray_Net tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html In fact the page does not work at all for me in Seamonkey 1.1.18 - it is completely blank. In IE8 it also fails. Seems like a webmaster's problem to me. Works fine here in IE8, blank in SM 1.1.16. Coordonnées GPS Cherchez un lieu pour déterminer sa position GPS ou déplacez le marqueur sur la carte. [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] [OK] Latitude 48.8722329 Longitude 2.2914848 [map showing requested location] You may want to update your compatibility list from M$. This is probably one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only, which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant but SM doesn't because SM's philosophy is to punish the user for the webmaster's mistakes. It's ok with my SM 1.1.14 ... so SM is not punished. But you tell us, using IE8, about [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] This is also ok for me at the load of the page... However the page did not work...Have you tried to change the location, per exemple put philadelphia in the zone, then click on Ok Is it still working ? I began by dragging and dropping the marker (déplacez le marqueur sur la carte) and the coordinates updated, though the address in the search window did not. Then I tried entering Rue Galvani, Paris (I could see it on the map), and I got error on page in the status bar and the map went all gray (though the navigation controls and Google notice remained). The rest of the page was fine. It didn't matter whether I used the Enter key or the Go button to request the update. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: JeffM wrote: I would say the Gecko philosophy is Don't interpolate; render what exists. Another way to say it might be We're skilled developers; we expect the site builders to be that too. Know how you can tell a crap Web Design book? It doesn't mention the W3C Validator in the first few pages. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: [...]for real-world users this comes across as uncooperative at best and dysfunctional at worst. ...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture. This isn't about Microsoft. It's about whether Mozilla develops a reputation among end users for offering a convenient and efficient way of viewing web pages. If end users feel deprived by our holier-than-thou browser, they will avoid it. In a world where some browsers display all the pages and some do not, they blame the browser, not the webmaster. That's /our/ policy hurting /our/ reputation. I happen to like the browser, for a variety of reasons (I've been here since Netscape 4), but this is a weak point. Here's another way of putting it: does your first baseman catch only the balls thrown right at him, or does he make all your infielders better by rescuing their errors? Sure, I'd love to have perfect infielders, but not many teams do, and winning teams have first basemen that help. It reminds me of a conversation where someone asks, Do you know the way to San Jose? What if he asked oD yuo kwno teh awy ot anS Jseo? I would still know what he wanted, and be able to answer, but I wouldn't enjoy a steady diet of that. On the other hand, software isn't subject to such emotions; it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without complaining. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
JeffM wrote: ...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: This isn't about Microsoft. Of course it's about M$. It's about their dominant position in the software marketplace. It's about M$ drones using M$'s ANTI-compliant tools. It's about those drones thinking that if M$ does it, it must be right. It's about those drones using FrontPage to make NON-compliant pages and using Internet Exploder to validate those. It's about unnecessarily sniffing for the more-compliant browsers instead of sniffing for the piece-of-junk browser(s). It's about whether Mozilla develops a reputation among end users for offering a convenient and efficient way of viewing web pages. Correction: The job of a Mozilla-compatible browser is to render **HTML** pages. The crap in question IS NOT AN HTML PAGE--in HUNDREDS of places. they blame the browser, not the webmaster. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't want stupid people on the team. On the contrary; I want people on the team who can recognize stupidity --and I want them to do the right thing when they see that stupidity: bitch at the guilty party--or even better, at his boss. does your first baseman catch only the balls thrown right at him Is the ball official equipment --or does the other team get to sneak in some tarballs? Is the umpire allowed to look the other way when that happens? Have all the rule books been shreaded for the duration? You sound like one of those from the **We can't make them feel bad about themselves, let's just lower the bar** generation, or maybe you're even younger--one of those having the bar lowered. Paul B. Gallagher wrote: It reminds me of a conversation where someone asks, Do you know the way to San Jose? What if he asked oD yuo kwno teh awy ot anS Jseo? I would still know what he wanted Apparently, you're smarter than the average bear. Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine. software isn't subject to such emotions; it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without complaining. The job of an HTML rendering engine is to render HTML. What _you_ would like it to do is render NON-HTML --and do it in the exact way that the junk product does.[1] What _you_ would like to see is a race to the bottom where all of the more-compliant browsers behave like the bottom-of-the-barrel browser. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer That's just silly--and it's NOT what's needed. What's needed is: 1) Get page builders to use the W3C Validator. 2) Get employers to use the Validator **BEFORE** they pay for services. 3) Get the Acid4 test page built and _publicize_ that to show even more what a piece of crap the dominant player is. (If they can't even break 20 percent on Acid3, what score do you think they'll get on Acid4?) . . [1] ...and the junk product isn't even consistant with itself across versions. See the Wikimedia page. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 14.09.2009 10:29, Ray_Net wrote: --- Original Message --- Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html Typing in the zone: las vegas and clicking on the Ok button shows you a map with a balloon pointing in the center of the las vegas town. Could someone tell me why IE did not show the map ? I have: 1. SM: SeaMonkey 1.1.14 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 NOT Firefox/2.0.0.12 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 2. IE: IE8 May be just IE8 because it works here in IE7 just fine. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion www.ufaq.org Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ray_Net tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html In fact the page does not work at all for me in Seamonkey 1.1.18 - it is completely blank. In IE8 it also fails. Seems like a webmaster's problem to me. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Paul Hartman wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ray_Net tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html In fact the page does not work at all for me in Seamonkey 1.1.18 - it is completely blank. In IE8 it also fails. Seems like a webmaster's problem to me. Works fine here in IE8, blank in SM 1.1.16. Coordonnées GPS Cherchez un lieu pour déterminer sa position GPS ou déplacez le marqueur sur la carte. [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] [OK] Latitude 48.8722329 Longitude 2.2914848 [map showing requested location] You may want to update your compatibility list from M$. This is probably one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only, which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant but SM doesn't because SM's philosophy is to punish the user for the webmaster's mistakes. -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Paul Hartman wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ray_Net tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html In fact the page does not work at all for me in Seamonkey 1.1.18 - it is completely blank. In IE8 it also fails. Seems like a webmaster's problem to me. Works fine here in IE8, blank in SM 1.1.16. Coordonnées GPS Cherchez un lieu pour déterminer sa position GPS ou déplacez le marqueur sur la carte. [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] [OK] Latitude 48.8722329 Longitude 2.2914848 [map showing requested location] You may want to update your compatibility list from M$. This is probably one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only, which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant but SM doesn't because SM's philosophy is to punish the user for the webmaster's mistakes. It's ok with my SM 1.1.14 ... so SM is not punished. But you tell us, using IE8, about [17 Avenue Victor Hugo, Paris] This is also ok for me at the load of the page... However the page did not work...Have you tried to change the location, per exemple put philadelphia in the zone, then click on Ok Is it still working ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On or about 9/14/2009 12:33 PM, Jay Garcia typed the following: On 14.09.2009 10:29, Ray_Net wrote: --- Original Message --- Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html Typing in the zone: las vegas and clicking on the Ok button shows you a map with a balloon pointing in the center of the las vegas town. Could someone tell me why IE did not show the map ? I have: 1. SM: SeaMonkey 1.1.14 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 NOT Firefox/2.0.0.12 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 2. IE: IE8 May be just IE8 because it works here in IE7 just fine. Works fine here in both SM 1.1.18 and IE8. Running Windows XP-PRO up-to-date -- Ed Build a system even a fool can use, and only a fool will use it. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
On 14.09.2009 11:51, Paul Hartman wrote: --- Original Message --- On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ray_Net tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html In fact the page does not work at all for me in Seamonkey 1.1.18 - it is completely blank. In IE8 it also fails. Seems like a webmaster's problem to me. Works here in: SM 1.1.18 FF 3.5.3 Netscape 7.2 IE 7 No problems in any one of those. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion www.ufaq.org Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Ray_Net wrote: Normally, here we see complains about the fact that soem sites works ok with IE and not with SM. I have found a site working ok with SM but i am unable to use it with IE. http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/coordonnees-gps-sur-google-maps.html Typing in the zone: las vegas and clicking on the Ok button shows you a map with a balloon pointing in the center of the las vegas town. Could someone tell me why IE did not show the map ? I have: 1. SM: SeaMonkey 1.1.14 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 NOT Firefox/2.0.0.12 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 2. IE: IE8 Works for me... SM 1.1.18 IE6... ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IE not working ! :-)
Paul B. Gallagher wrote: [...]This is probably one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only, which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant but SM doesn't because SM's philosophy is to punish the user for the webmaster's mistakes. I would say the Gecko philosophy is Don't interpolate; render what exists. Another way to say it might be We're skilled developers; we expect the site builders to be that too. Know how you can tell a crap Web Design book? It doesn't mention the W3C Validator in the first few pages. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
