I would say the Gecko philosophy is
"Don't interpolate; render what exists."
Another way to say it might be
"We're skilled developers; we expect the site builders to be that
Know how you can tell a crap Web Design book?
It doesn't mention the W3C Validator in the first few pages.
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
[...]for real-world users this comes across as
uncooperative at best and dysfunctional at worst.
...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture.
This isn't about Microsoft. It's about whether Mozilla develops a
reputation among end users for offering a convenient and efficient way
of viewing web pages. If end users feel deprived by our holier-than-thou
browser, they will avoid it. In a world where some browsers display all
the pages and some do not, they blame the browser, not the webmaster.
That's /our/ policy hurting /our/ reputation.
I happen to like the browser, for a variety of reasons (I've been here
since Netscape 4), but this is a weak point. Here's another way of
putting it: does your first baseman catch only the balls thrown right at
him, or does he make all your infielders better by rescuing their
errors? Sure, I'd love to have perfect infielders, but not many teams
do, and winning teams have first basemen that help.
It reminds me of a conversation where someone asks,
"Do you know the way to San Jose?"
What if he asked "oD yuo kwno teh awy ot anS Jseo?"
I would still know what he wanted, and be able to answer, but I wouldn't
enjoy a steady diet of that. On the other hand, software isn't subject
to such emotions; it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
Paul B. Gallagher
support-seamonkey mailing list