>>>JeffM wrote:
>>>>...and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture.
>>>>
>>Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>>>This isn't about Microsoft.
>>>>
>JeffM wrote:
>>Of course it's about M$.
>>[. . .]
>>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
>
The W3C gets to say what is HTML and what isn't.
Over 400 times, they say the page ISN'T HTML.

>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?
>
Wrong analogy.
Better analogy:
You take your showroom-stock minivan
--which works just fine as a grocery-getter--
and enter it into the Baja 500.  After you tear it all to hell,
you expect the dealership to fix it under warranty.

Mozilla-compliant browsers work very well rendering HTML.
Again:  Rendering NON-HTML is NOT their job.

>>>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.
>
Nope.  Goes to the heart of the issue.

>I'm not saying put stupid people on the development team.
>
Nor am I.

>But the vast majority of your end users -- like it or not --
>are what you call "stupid people."
>
The job of Mozilla fanboys is NOT to advocate to break the browser
such that it will render any grade of crap;
it is to **educate** the ignorant as to the existance of that crap.

>This kind of arrogance
>is what got Apple consigned to a 10% niche of the market
>
Apple has exactly the market they want.
...and by some figures, Linux's share exceeds Apple's.
All of that is a red herring.  More on non-M$ environments below.

>while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%.
>
M$ got their wealth illicitly
http://google.com/search?q=cache:w100CwTtO_MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish+*-*-v-Microsoft-*-trial+and.the.Internet+Netscape+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-monopolize-a-*-category+text+*-not-*-*-*-*-*-*-part-of-the-standard+Java+*-*-competitors-that-do-not-*-*-support-the-*-extensions+*-*-Department-*-Justice+*-describe-Microsoft's-strategy
That topic is very much in keeping with this theme.
Unlike your Machiavellian advocacy,
that is NOT a model I want to emulate.

...and if proper application of STANDARDS had been executed
(anti-trust enforcement by
US Congressional commitees, US FTC, US DoJ, EU regulators),
M$ would be just another face in the crowd.

>>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,
>
I call 'em like I see 'em.  If you see it as an insult, so be it.

>and it won't get you market share.
>
I'm not looking for market share at the expense of STANDARDS.
If you look at e.g. Norway and Brazil, you'll see the right approach.

>Pleasing customers is the only thing that will.
>
"The customer is always right" is crap.
Some customers are idiots.
Idiots especially aren't worth the effort. (See "Apple", above.)

>Insulting customers doesn't get you market share,
>
See "educate", above.
...and "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards.

>and designing a product
>that intentionally fails one of their primary criteria won't either.
>
Regarding "their primary criteria":
See "idiots", above.  See also "educate".

Regarding "fails":
See "STANDARDS", above.  See also "rendering HTML"

>insulting me shows the bankruptcy of your argument.
>
Once someone ignores the core issue (STANDARDS),
the argument is over.  All that is left at that point is ad hominem.

>If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to do that.
>
If you would quit evading the core issue,
I wouldn't need to do that.

>>Too bad you don't understand the job of an HTML rending engine.
>
>I actually understand the rendering engine's job
>better than you give me credit for.
>
Not if you keep insisting that everyone does things the M$ way
and ignores W3C.

>I understand how it works in the real world,
>not in the lab where all the tests are perfectly controlled.
>
Again: The race to the bottom--with M$ setting the pace.

M$ does NOT set the standards; W3C sets the standards.
...and in the supreme irony, M$ is a member of W3C
and constantly ignores--or, more accurately--
purposely deviates from those standards.

...and my solution is to boycott sites created by idiots;
I don't seem to be missing significant content.

>>>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.
>
>Don't put words in my mouth.
>
I think I echoed your view quite clearly:  Do as The Borg does.

>If I wanted crap I'd be using Internet Exploiter.
>
When they encounter a page that was MADE for Internet Exploder,
that is exactly what the users *should* be told.
They should also be told to complain--to the proper party.

IE-specific sites, however,
make it difficult for those folks using non-M$ platforms
--which is the undercurrent for all of this.
Those sites also crap all over the intentions
of users who CHOOSE not to use IE--even though it is available.

The Internet was meant to be
a homogenous network with a heterogenous infrastructure.
That means it shouldn't matter whose stuff you run.
...then along came M$.
Anything they can't control entirely, they try to corrupt.
That's where we are--and pandering to M$'s goals is condoning evil.

The way you accomplish the homogenous network
is with STANDARDS.
As with any field, when the standards are ignored,
you end up with a giant glob of crap.
THAT is where these non-compliant sites come in.

>>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?
>
See "educate", above.

>Keep in mind that the webmasters' customers are not HTML experts,
>
See "educate", above.  See "Norway and Brazil", above.
Your advocacy of surrender is moving in the wrong direction.

>[...]you're going to have to start by building a better customer.
>
Yup.  See "educate", above.

>>...and the junk product isn't even consistant with itself
>>across versions.  See the Wikimedia page.
>>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer
>>
>They're adapting, they're surviving,
>
What M$ is doing is breaking anti-trust laws.
See "regulators", above.

>they're succeeding.
>
What they are doing is losing marketshare by the minute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Net_Applications_.282004_to_Present.29
The word is getting out.
See "educate", above.
See "users who CHOOSE not to use IE", above.

Why anyone would choose to emulate the methods
of the player whose stack is dwindling, I can't imagine.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to