Re: Some web pages not showing up right
Paul Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. Gallagher pau...@pbgdashtranslations.com wrote: Martin Feitag wrote: I've never seen a major website which causes problems for Seamonkey 1.1.x _without_ having fatal errors. Well, I guess there's a philosophical question here -- are we attorneys or are we programmers? The sticklers are right, of course, to say that these pages are chock-full of errors. But end users don't care if you're right, they want to see the content. So if they have to choose between a program that displays a reasonable facsimile of the author's intent and one that displays hash, they'll choose the program that shows the content. So would you rather be right, or would you rather be popular? In an ideal world, I'd like to see SeaMonkey show a disclaimer (the way it does in the mail app when it blocks remote content) saying something along the lines that this page contains fatal errors in its coding, but we've done the best we could to divine what the designer wanted, and we're showing you that but we might've guessed wrong. ;-) Yes, the problem is that the author of the page in question specifically declared his page as being XHTML 1.0 Transitional and then violated all the rules. He could have just as easily left off the doctype and left it up to the browser to interpret the page in quirks mode or however it saw fit. By displaying buggy pages correctly, incompetence and laziness is rewarded. In fact a proper XHTML page served with application/xhtml+xml mime type will not display at all if there is a single error in the markup. Who are you punishing? The end user, dissatisfied with being unable to view a page, will often switch to the other browser, rewarding the incompetence and punishing the stickler. I know that's what I do when I really need the content. The only time I give up and move on is when I don't care about the content. For example, in my work for my political party, I monitor home sales and deaths in my county, the former so we can send someone to welcome new homeowners and strike the move-outs off our lists, and the latter so we can strike decedents and not disturb their grieving families. The county websites work only with Internet Exploiter, so I have to choose between doing this valuable work and using the right browser (which BTW is my default and my favorite). I choose to do the work. http://rodviewer.montcopa.org/countyweb/login.jsp?countyname=Montgomery http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Search/SalesSearch.aspx?mode=sales I would rather be right than popular :) Be careful what you wish for. ;-) -- 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: Some web pages not showing up right
On 7/16/2009 2:34 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Paul Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. Gallagher pau...@pbgdashtranslations.com wrote: Martin Feitag wrote: I've never seen a major website which causes problems for Seamonkey 1.1.x _without_ having fatal errors. Well, I guess there's a philosophical question here -- are we attorneys or are we programmers? The sticklers are right, of course, to say that these pages are chock-full of errors. But end users don't care if you're right, they want to see the content. So if they have to choose between a program that displays a reasonable facsimile of the author's intent and one that displays hash, they'll choose the program that shows the content. So would you rather be right, or would you rather be popular? In an ideal world, I'd like to see SeaMonkey show a disclaimer (the way it does in the mail app when it blocks remote content) saying something along the lines that this page contains fatal errors in its coding, but we've done the best we could to divine what the designer wanted, and we're showing you that but we might've guessed wrong. ;-) Yes, the problem is that the author of the page in question specifically declared his page as being XHTML 1.0 Transitional and then violated all the rules. He could have just as easily left off the doctype and left it up to the browser to interpret the page in quirks mode or however it saw fit. By displaying buggy pages correctly, incompetence and laziness is rewarded. In fact a proper XHTML page served with application/xhtml+xml mime type will not display at all if there is a single error in the markup. Who are you punishing? The end user, dissatisfied with being unable to view a page, will often switch to the other browser, rewarding the incompetence and punishing the stickler. I know that's what I do when I really need the content. The only time I give up and move on is when I don't care about the content. For example, in my work for my political party, I monitor home sales and deaths in my county, the former so we can send someone to welcome new homeowners and strike the move-outs off our lists, and the latter so we can strike decedents and not disturb their grieving families. The county websites work only with Internet Exploiter, so I have to choose between doing this valuable work and using the right browser (which BTW is my default and my favorite). I choose to do the work. http://rodviewer.montcopa.org/countyweb/login.jsp?countyname=Montgomery http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Search/SalesSearch.aspx?mode=sales I would rather be right than popular :) Be careful what you wish for. ;-) The original post in this thread cited a Web page for a California state agency. California law requires state Web pages be accessible to the handicapped. In California, counties are considered agents of the state (unlike cities, which are governments distinct from the state). Thus, the law might also apply to counties. A page that can be viewed only with IE might violate that law as it is unlikely it can be rendered properly by an audio browser. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Go to Mozdev at http://www.mozdev.org/ for quick access to extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On 07/16/2009 05:48 PM, David E. Ross wrote: On 7/16/2009 2:34 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Paul Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. Gallagher ... http://rodviewer.montcopa.org/countyweb/login.jsp?countyname=Montgomery http://propertyrecords.montcopa.org/Search/SalesSearch.aspx?mode=sales I would rather be right than popular :) Be careful what you wish for. ;-) The original post in this thread cited a Web page for a California state agency. California law requires state Web pages be accessible to the handicapped. In California, counties are considered agents of the state (unlike cities, which are governments distinct from the state). Thus, the law might also apply to counties. A page that can be viewed only with IE might violate that law as it is unlikely it can be rendered properly by an audio browser. The page can be viewed with multiple browsers (as I've previously mentioned). Further it can also be easily viewed even with SM 1.1.17 if you use View|Use Style|None. There has been no mention of an 'audio browser' in reference to the site or the subject: Some web pages not showing up right, so I'd recommend trying the site using an audio browser to test it for accessability issues then bring that up to the State of California, and a *new thread* if you wish. In that pursuit, this might be of interest/help: http://www.reportingtransparency.ca.gov/accessibility.html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
Paul Hartman schrieb: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, NoOpgl...@sbcglobal.net.invalid wrote: On 07/14/2009 07:55 AM, David E. Ross wrote: On 7/14/2009 6:58 AM, J G wrote: several times I have noticed that a web page will not display on SeaMonkey1.1.17 but it is a good looking web page on Mozilla Firefox and the virus magnet MicroBsoft IE. The following link is an example. https://wp11.calhfa.ca.gov/ApprovedLenders/Default.aspx How can one fix SeaMonkey to make this type of problem go away. I strongly suspect that SeaMonkey is not broken and therefore requires no fix. The page has 50 XHTML errors and 3 CSS errors. Until those errors are corrected, you should suspect them to be the cause of your problem. It displays nicely in SeaMonkey 2.0b1pre FireFox 3.5, is totally wacked in 1.1.17, a little flat but ok in Opera, and nicely in Epiphany (Gnome Web Browser 2.26.1 which uses gecko-1.9 - see http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/). So I reckon that 1.1.17 is broken recall a bug to this effect but can't put my finger on it just now. I think it had something to do with css style handling. So many errors and you think it's Seamonkey's mistake? Pff! I have previously seen the same apparent problem on tigerdirect.com where the main body of the page is off to the right of the screen for some reason, and it only happened in SeaMonkey. (that site seems to be okay now, though) The ca.gov site from OP's problem does, however, have terribly mangled XHTML (including two closing body tags and many improperly nested tags, among other things). It would be interesting to see if the page still exhibited problems after being fixed. I bet not! I've never seen a major website which causes problems for Seamonkey1.1.x _without_ having fatal errors. regards Martin ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. Gallagherpau...@pbgdashtranslations.com wrote: Martin Feitag wrote: I've never seen a major website which causes problems for Seamonkey 1.1.x _without_ having fatal errors. Well, I guess there's a philosophical question here -- are we attorneys or are we programmers? The sticklers are right, of course, to say that these pages are chock-full of errors. But end users don't care if you're right, they want to see the content. So if they have to choose between a program that displays a reasonable facsimile of the author's intent and one that displays hash, they'll choose the program that shows the content. So would you rather be right, or would you rather be popular? In an ideal world, I'd like to see SeaMonkey show a disclaimer (the way it does in the mail app when it blocks remote content) saying something along the lines that this page contains fatal errors in its coding, but we've done the best we could to divine what the designer wanted, and we're showing you that but we might've guessed wrong. ;-) Yes, the problem is that the author of the page in question specifically declared his page as being XHTML 1.0 Transitional and then violated all the rules. He could have just as easily left off the doctype and left it up to the browser to interpret the page in quirks mode or however it saw fit. By displaying buggy pages correctly, incompetence and laziness is rewarded. In fact a proper XHTML page served with application/xhtml+xml mime type will not display at all if there is a single error in the markup. I would rather be right than popular :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On 07/15/2009 09:32 AM, Paul Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. Gallagherpau...@pbgdashtranslations.com wrote: Martin Feitag wrote: I've never seen a major website which causes problems for Seamonkey 1.1.x _without_ having fatal errors. Well, I guess there's a philosophical question here -- are we attorneys or are we programmers? The sticklers are right, of course, to say that these pages are chock-full of errors. But end users don't care if you're right, they want to see the content. So if they have to choose between a program that displays a reasonable facsimile of the author's intent and one that displays hash, they'll choose the program that shows the content. So would you rather be right, or would you rather be popular? In an ideal world, I'd like to see SeaMonkey show a disclaimer (the way it does in the mail app when it blocks remote content) saying something along the lines that this page contains fatal errors in its coding, but we've done the best we could to divine what the designer wanted, and we're showing you that but we might've guessed wrong. ;-) Yes, the problem is that the author of the page in question specifically declared his page as being XHTML 1.0 Transitional and then violated all the rules. He could have just as easily left off the doctype and left it up to the browser to interpret the page in quirks mode or however it saw fit. By displaying buggy pages correctly, incompetence and laziness is rewarded. In fact a proper XHTML page served with application/xhtml+xml mime type will not display at all if there is a single error in the markup. I would rather be right than popular :) While I agree that the issue is likely code errors on the site, the fact still remains that Fx 3.5 SeaMonkey 2.0x (both of which use the Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine vs SM 1.1.1x which uses Gecko 1.8.1[1]) handle the page with no issues. Something has been changed between the versions to ignore/correct/quietly handle, etc., the page code problems. So, I guess that Mozilla has decided to go the incompetence and laziness is rewarded route in your opinion? [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, NoOpgl...@sbcglobal.net.invalid wrote: Something has been changed between the versions to ignore/correct/quietly handle, etc., the page code problems. So, I guess that Mozilla has decided to go the incompetence and laziness is rewarded route in your opinion? Warning: extreme fence-riding below :) As a user, the browser that lets me do what I'm trying to do no matter how the page is composed is more valuable. As a web developer, the browser that refuses to do anything with invalid content is more valuable. In a perfect world, the latter would render the former unnecessary because nobody would make bad web pages. I don't know what the mission of the Seamonkey and Firefox projects are and what their official stance is when it comes to displaying broken web pages, but I suspect they lean toward the user's side of things. (Especially when the competition is MSIE, which is the notorious king of allowing anyone to do any crazy thing on a web page and still render it in a way that looks normal) I think the increasing ability of Firefox to display malformed web pages probably contributes to its usefulness by users, but could also lead to incompetence and laziness by web developers, just as MSIE has done and continues to do. Of course some of the theoretical web developers that I accuse of being lazy or incompetent might say that not having to worry about writing valid HTML contributes to their efficiency and their paycheck. :) To get back to the OP's problem, whether this particular page rendering weirdly is the fault of a Seamonkey bug or the web page I have no idea, but I don't think the page can be ruled out as a suspect until its XHTML is fixed. I don't think I've ever seen a page with valid HTML that rendered so badly in Seamonkey (but of course that doesn't mean it's not possible). ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On 07/15/2009 12:21 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, NoOpgl...@sbcglobal.net.invalid wrote: Something has been changed between the versions to ignore/correct/quietly handle, etc., the page code problems. So, I guess that Mozilla has decided to go the incompetence and laziness is rewarded route in your opinion? Warning: extreme fence-riding below :) As a user, the browser that lets me do what I'm trying to do no matter how the page is composed is more valuable. As a web developer, the browser that refuses to do anything with invalid content is more valuable. In a perfect world, the latter would render the former unnecessary because nobody would make bad web pages. I don't know what the mission of the Seamonkey and Firefox projects are and what their official stance is when it comes to displaying broken web pages, but I suspect they lean toward the user's side of things. (Especially when the competition is MSIE, which is the notorious king of allowing anyone to do any crazy thing on a web page and still render it in a way that looks normal) I think the increasing ability of Firefox to display malformed web pages probably contributes to its usefulness by users, but could also lead to incompetence and laziness by web developers, just as MSIE has done and continues to do. Of course some of the theoretical web developers that I accuse of being lazy or incompetent might say that not having to worry about writing valid HTML contributes to their efficiency and their paycheck. :) To get back to the OP's problem, whether this particular page rendering weirdly is the fault of a Seamonkey bug or the web page I have no idea, but I don't think the page can be ruled out as a suspect until its XHTML is fixed. I don't think I've ever seen a page with valid HTML that rendered so badly in Seamonkey (but of course that doesn't mean it's not possible). Can't argue with any of that... but it sure is nice (from a user perspective) to be able to render web pages in SM 2.0x in the same manner as Fx 3.5 :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On 7/14/2009 6:58 AM, J G wrote: several times I have noticed that a web page will not display on SeaMonkey1.1.17 but it is a good looking web page on Mozilla Firefox and the virus magnet MicroBsoft IE. The following link is an example. https://wp11.calhfa.ca.gov/ApprovedLenders/Default.aspx How can one fix SeaMonkey to make this type of problem go away. I strongly suspect that SeaMonkey is not broken and therefore requires no fix. The page has 50 XHTML errors and 3 CSS errors. Until those errors are corrected, you should suspect them to be the cause of your problem. Do what I did when I saw a similar problem with a different California state agency. I determined who was the head of the department over that agency and sent him a letter (postal, not E-mail). In the letter, I cited the URI and that the Web page could not be viewed properly by my browser. I mentioned that the page might thus not be viewable with audio browsers used by the visually handicapped, a violation of California's Government Code ยง11135(d)(2). My letter got results in less than two weeks. Note that I tried viewing your URI while spoofing Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. Neither attempt resulted in an improvement in how the page was rendered. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Go to Mozdev at http://www.mozdev.org/ for quick access to extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Some web pages not showing up right
On 07/14/2009 07:55 AM, David E. Ross wrote: On 7/14/2009 6:58 AM, J G wrote: several times I have noticed that a web page will not display on SeaMonkey1.1.17 but it is a good looking web page on Mozilla Firefox and the virus magnet MicroBsoft IE. The following link is an example. https://wp11.calhfa.ca.gov/ApprovedLenders/Default.aspx How can one fix SeaMonkey to make this type of problem go away. I strongly suspect that SeaMonkey is not broken and therefore requires no fix. The page has 50 XHTML errors and 3 CSS errors. Until those errors are corrected, you should suspect them to be the cause of your problem. It displays nicely in SeaMonkey 2.0b1pre FireFox 3.5, is totally wacked in 1.1.17, a little flat but ok in Opera, and nicely in Epiphany (Gnome Web Browser 2.26.1 which uses gecko-1.9 - see http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/). So I reckon that 1.1.17 is broken recall a bug to this effect but can't put my finger on it just now. I think it had something to do with css style handling. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
