JeffM wrote:

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).

None of these things will change if you put your nose in the air and tell end users they can't use your browser for all pages, just the ones you think are good enough. The marketplace doesn't work that way, and wishing won't make it so.

Sure, Micro$oft is evil. So? A zebra thinks lions are evil, but that won't make them go away, and it won't save them from getting eaten. You can rail all you want at the gods or the stars or whoever you think is responsible, but that doesn't affect reality on the ground.

It's about whether Mozilla develops a reputation among end users
for offering a convenient and efficient way of viewing web pages.

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.

That may be your narrow technical definition, but if you get out of your cubicle and talk to real users in the real world you'll see it's very different. How would you feel if you went into an auto dealer and he proudly announced that his car only ran on straight paved roads in the daytime?

I'll bet your favorite pet is a koala. Eats only eucalyptus leaves, and fresh ones at that. Put it in a garden full of yummy fruits and vegetables but no eucalyptus, and it starves.

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.

Straw man. I'm not saying put stupid people on the development team. But the vast majority of your end users -- like it or not -- are what you call "stupid people." This kind of arrogance is what got Apple consigned to a 10% niche of the market while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%.

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.

Insulting me won't solve your problem, and it won't get you market share. Pleasing customers is the only thing that will. Insulting customers doesn't get you market share, and designing a product that intentionally fails one of their primary criteria won't either.

Oh, and BTW, insulting me shows the bankruptcy of your argument. If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to do that.

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.

Freudian slip? It's "rendering engine." To "rend" is to tear apart.

I actually understand the rendering engine's job better than you give me credit for. I understand how it works in the real world, not in the lab where all the tests are perfectly controlled.

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.
That's just silly--and it's NOT what's needed.

Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted crap I'd be using Internet Exploiter. I'm a Netscape fan from way back, and I'm still here more than a decade after Microsoft declared war on us.

When the Chixulub meteor struck 65 million years ago, the world went to hell, and only the animals who could adapt to very difficult conditions survived. Part of that meant eating nonstandard foods and living in spartan accommodations (no HBO for these guys). They didn't /order/ the food, but they had to eat something, and those that did survived.

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?)

Nice dream, I like it. How do you plan to accomplish this? Keep in mind that the webmasters' customers are not HTML experts, they just want their pages to render well for most visitors. The customers are focused on content, functionality, things like that; they couldn't care less about what's under the hood. If you want all this to happen, you're going to have to start by building a better customer. Good luck with /that/.

[1] ...and the junk product isn't even consistant with itself
across versions.  See the Wikimedia page.

They're adapting, they're surviving, they're succeeding. Are we?

War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
Paul B. Gallagher
support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to