stango wrote: >different pages are developed using different software > Don't blame the software. Ultimately it's the human's responsibility to assure that the work he produces isn't crap.
>and for different browsers, > Mostly, this refers to pages built by fools and incompetents who use Micros~1 Internet Exploder as their yardstick to gauge how "good" their output is. IE-compatibility is the **WORST** metric to use. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer Here's the proper way to determine if what a developer is churning out is is garbage http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.daytondailynews.com/entertainment/holidays/halloween/beggars/ or if he has a clue what **proper** code is. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webstandards.org/2008/10/02/dowehaveawinner/ >not all pages will be rendered by all browsers the same. > To state that correctly: Pages that are NOT built to be **standards-compliant** will NOT necessarily behave properly with most browsers. If a browser has to GUESS WRF a Web developer is trying to do, there is a high probability the browser will GUESS WRONG. >That page has code that Seamonkey can render correctly > aka A lucky guess by SM. There was NO assurance it would render the broken code properly. >but cannot print because it is interpreting some code >to the best of its ability but visually incorrect. > Bingo! In short, it's not the browser's fault. I wish folks would stop approaching pages that were built specifically for Internet Exploder with timid, apologetic explanations. The reason that the page is CRAP is because the person(s) who built it are INCOMPETENT. If they were plumbers or electricians and pulled this crap, their licenses would have been yanked long ago. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
