On 07/15/2009 09:32 AM, 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.
> 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

Reply via email to