On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, NoOp<[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
