JeffM wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>
Who on earth is talking about repairs???

You are.  You want Gecko browsers to repair broken sites.
Again:  THAT IS **NOT** THE BROWSER'S JOB.

Uh, no, for the umpteenth time, I don't. I want them to produce a reasonable rendering that the user can view and understand. That's not repairing, that's coping.

The job of the browser is to render what exists
--not to make weird quesses abut what coulda/shouda/mighta.

Says you, the sole arbiter of truth.

JeffM wrote:
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.
Who's advocating "breaking" it?

Besides un-breaking sites, would you also like it to dance a jig?
It's hard enough to make the damned thing render **HTML** faithfully.
Now you want it to make guess about junk code
**and** do it the same way as M$'s guesses.
Just clueless.

Not me.

Clueless.

Insults do not an argument make. This tells us more about you than about the browser issue.

I'm saying it should be able to handle whatever crap real-world
webmasters throw at it. That's /toughening/ it, not sabotaging it.

Years ago, I gave a technical document to someone to type.
He was the only guy with a computer--because he was hogging it.
He was not in the mood to be a typist,
so he edited my document for brevity.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED OF HIM.

This is what you are expecting the browser to do,
to transform something
--rather than to do its job and render what exists.
The only appropriate alternative for handling broken code
would be to display the RAW code--and not try to render it.

All or nothing? Not a very sophisticated program. I remember I had programs like that in the DOS days, if you didn't feed them precisely the eucalyptus leaves they wanted, they died.

A good program, like a good employee, copes with challenges and gets the job done.

If measures of success are a red herring to you,
I'm willing to bet you're not very successful.

If success means criminal activity, I'm not interested.
If success means NOT doing the job according to the specification,
I'm not interested.
Again, you seem to be of a generation
where cheats and shortcuts are the norm.
I have already called this Machiavellian.

More insults? You really need to come up with a better argument, because you're not convincing anyone.

Any idiot can do a rigid job according to specification. I don't hire idiots.

It's obvious you would like this browser to to be the same as M$'s;
that is the ONLY way to achieve the goal you have set.
That means following M$'s lead.  Really dumb idea.

If their product can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and I want our product to do so too, does that mean we must emulate their technique? It doesn't follow.

[...]if most of the market is "idiots,"
the problem is not with the market, it's with your attitude.

The solution for that market of idiots already exists.
It's called Internet Exploder.
The sites were built for that tool; just use that tool
--or boycott the broken site.

I do use their product when ours fails me. But I'd rather use our product; on balance I like it better. You're saying I shouldn't do that, I should just deprive myself of that content. Well, no, I don't have to observe your personal boycott. I find a way to get the job done, and if that means using Internet Exploiter sometimes, well, that's the price I pay for getting the job done.

In my work I need to monitor local deaths at this site:
<http://www.montcopa.org/registerofwillsorphanscourt/rwocviewer/>
I can display the page in SM, but the search button doesn't do anything, so it's useless. I don't care that the W3C validator found 43 errors, I just want to do my job and search the decedents database. So I use IE. Excuse the hell out of me.

This also applies to *your* insistance on supporting non-standards.

I'm not insisting on /supporting/ non-standards.

Clueless.
Again:  Un-breaking bad code is NOT the job of the browser.
You would like to break something that's not broken
in order to make something that IS broken look right.
That is just dumb--but why should I expect different from you;
you don't understand the problem.
You continue to think that THE BOWSER is the problem.

No, I think the browser has the potential to be part of the /solution/.

If you're a cop investigating a murder and one of the suspects doesn't speak too very good the English, do you give up and declare the case closed, or do you find a way to interrogate him? You find a way to get the job done. Nothing has to be "broken." My ability to understand pidgin English doesn't prevent me from understanding or producing well-formed native English.

That's what our browser should do, find a way to get the job done. Render the page. Serve the user. A better browser is one that renders more pages, not one that turns up its nose at the least little thing.

I don't agree that the network needs to be homogeneous,

There we have it.  You don't understand Point #1about the Internet.

The fact that we disagree does not make me clueless, it just means I have a different perspective. I could just as easily say that because /you/ don't conform to /my/ specs, /you/ must be clueless. What would that get me? I know, I know, more insults. Not very persuasive.

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to