>JeffM wrote: >>Contact the jackass who can't built a proper Web page. >>Direct your bile at the moron who obviously >>doesn't do proper testing on the crap pages he produces. > Ed Mullen wrote: >Err, contact, perhaps, a commenter who can get his verb tenses right? > Have I erred in ASSuMEing that someone who has built crappy Web pages in the past isn't *still* using the same crappy tools and crappy methods? Perhaps. I seriously doubt that individual is doing better work today, however. ...and I assume his clueless boss is still paying him for that glop.
>And, there is NO perfectly built browser, doesn't exist. > ...yet it *is* possible for a browser that isn't 100.000% perfect to render a perfectly-built page properly. Can someone point to a page that passes the W3V Validator but which looks/acts like crap in SeaMonkey? I thought not. ...and, again, asking the SeaMonkey developers to go out of their way to include a way to accomodate EVERY possible permutation of crap coding that some nincompoop might generate is completely missing the point of what a browser's job is. A browser's job is to render *proper* markup. So, Mr. Web Developer, If you create something **other** than that, don't expect it to be rendered properly. VALIDATE YOUR DAMNED CODE *BEFORE* YOU PUBLISH. If it doesn't pass, FIX IT. ...and Mr. Web Surfer, if you go to that nincompoop's site, don't expect his pages to work properly when he hasn't made the effort to do things properly. >[. . .] >Ok, done bitching. For now. > Me too. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
