>JeffM wrote:
>>...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture.
>
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>This isn't about Microsoft.
>>
Of course it's about M$.
It's about their dominant position in the software marketplace.
It's about M$ drones using M$'s ANTI-compliant tools.
It's about those drones thinking that if M$ does it, it must be right.
It's about those drones
using FrontPage to make NON-compliant pages
and using Internet Exploder to "validate" those.
It's about unnecessarily sniffing for the more-compliant browsers
instead of sniffing for the piece-of-junk browser(s).

>It's about whether Mozilla develops a reputation among end users
>for offering a convenient and efficient way of viewing web pages.
>
Correction:
The job of a Mozilla-compatible browser is to render **HTML** pages.
The crap in question IS NOT AN HTML PAGE--in HUNDREDS of places.

>they blame the browser, not the webmaster.
>
Stupid is as stupid does.  I don't want stupid people on the team.
On the contrary;
I want people on the team who can recognize stupidity
--and I want them to do the right thing when they see that stupidity:
bitch at the guilty party--or even better, at his boss.

>does your first baseman catch only the balls thrown right at him
>
Is the ball official equipment
--or does the other team get to sneak in some tarballs?
Is the umpire allowed to look the other way when that happens?
Have all the rule books been shreaded for the duration?

You sound like one of those from the
**We can't make them feel bad about themselves,
let's just lower the bar** generation,
or maybe you're even younger--one of those having the bar lowered.

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>>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
>
Apparently, you're smarter than the average bear.
Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine.

>software isn't subject to such emotions;
>it does whatever the programmers tell it to do without complaining.
>
The job of an HTML rendering engine is to render HTML.
What _you_ would like it to do is render NON-HTML
--and do it in the exact way that the junk product does.[1]
What _you_ would like to see is a race to the bottom
where all of the more-compliant browsers
behave like the bottom-of-the-barrel browser.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer
That's just silly--and it's NOT what's needed.

What's needed is:
1) Get page builders to use the W3C Validator.
2) Get employers to use the Validator
   **BEFORE** they pay for services.
3) Get the Acid4 test page built and _publicize_ that
to show even more what a piece of crap "the dominant player" is.
(If they can't even break 20 percent on Acid3,
what score do you think they'll get on Acid4?)
.
.
[1] ...and the junk product isn't even consistant with itself
across versions.  See the Wikimedia page.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to