On 07/15/2009 09:32 AM, Paul Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul B. > Gallagher<[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
