On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B.
> 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