On 8/31/2009 7:35 AM, Phillip Jones wrote: > David E. Ross wrote: >> On 8/30/2009 8:27 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: >>> Hello, it been a while I vowed never to come back to this forum except >>> to ask a question. I remain true to my vow. I am asking a question >>> >>> I have a puzzle. >>> >>> examine this page with SM 1.1.17: >>> >>> http://villageelectronicsservice.com/VacationSchedule.aspx >>> >>> Now use: SM 2, FF3.0/3.5, Omniweb, Opera or iCab. >>> >>> In all of those All-in-ones and Web Browsers The page for me views as it >>> should. >>> >>> In SM 1.1.17 >>> >>> after the side text is shown then the main text shows about an inch to >>> inch and a half wide. >>> >>> using the w3c validator, typing the link above shows numerous items >>> needing correction and several warning. yet the other applications >>> appear to load correctly. If you go to any links other than vacation, >>> the pages work even on SM1.1.17. >>> >>> Anyone have an explanation. >> Generally, a rendering engine (the browser's guts that display a Web >> page) is programmed to "guess" how to display a page that is buggy. >> Different rendering engines might guess differently, depending on how >> the programmer decides HTML syntax errors should be handled. >> >> SeaMonkey 1.1.17 gives different results from SeaMonkey 2.x because they >> different Gecko engines. SeaMonkey 2.x uses approximately the same >> engine that is used by Firefox 3.x, an engine that guesses differently >> from the one used by SeaMonkey 1.1.17. >> >> In my opinion, a browser is not at fault if it displays a buggy Web page >> incorrectly, even if other browsers are able to display the page >> appropriately. After all, if you input manure, you should not be >> surprised if the output is also manure. >> > > I agree, I knew it wasn't right by running, it through the Validator and > coming up with all those errors and warnings. > > But I find it curious, that the efforts to be standards compliant was to > make it so that if a site was using bad code it wasn't suppose to load. > Forcing developer of website to get it right. Yet all the new > Browsers whether Gecko or webkit appear to be falling back to an old IE > 5 trick of self healing. > > It appears only SeaMonkey 1.1.17 is the only one loading it correctly.
While I've read suggestions that browsers reject bad HTML, I don't think that has been implemented anywhere. It would suddenly make much of the Web inaccessible. It would also cause havoc with much HTML-formatted E-mail (an average of 9.1 HTML errors per kilobyte of message). -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey