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.
>> 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
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