Re: IE not working ! :-) - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: IE not working ! :-) - Mozilla ; Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >[...]This is probably >one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only, >which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant >but SM doesn't because >SM's philosophy is to punish the user for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: IE not working ! :-)

  1. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
    >[...]This is probably
    >one of those noncompliant pages written for IE7 only,
    >which IE8 knows how to handle if you tell it it's noncompliant
    >but SM doesn't because
    >SM's philosophy is to punish the user for the webmaster's mistakes.
    >

    I would say the Gecko philosophy is
    "Don't interpolate; render what exists."

    Another way to say it might be
    "We're skilled developers; we expect the site builders to be that
    too."

    Know how you can tell a crap Web Design book?
    It doesn't mention the W3C Validator in the first few pages.

  2. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    >JeffM wrote:
    > > I would say the Gecko philosophy is
    > > "Don't interpolate; render what exists."
    > >
    > > Another way to say it might be
    > > "We're skilled developers; we expect the site builders to be that
    > > too."
    > >
    > > Know how you can tell a crap Web Design book?
    > > It doesn't mention the W3C Validator in the first few pages.
    >>

    Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
    >[...]for real-world users this comes across as
    >uncooperative at best and dysfunctional at worst.
    >

    ....and, again, Microsoft is allowed to cloud the picture.

    >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?"

  3. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    >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).

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

    Correction:
    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.

    >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.

    >does your first baseman catch only the balls thrown right at him
    >

    Is the ball official equipment
    --or does the other team get to sneak in some tarballs?
    Is the umpire allowed to look the other way when that happens?
    Have all the rule books been shreaded for the duration?

    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.

    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.

    >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/Ac...ernet_Explorer
    That's just silly--and it's NOT what's needed.

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

  4. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    >>>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:w10...#39;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/Ac...ernet_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/Ac...ernet_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_s..._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.

  5. Re: IE not working ! :-)

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

    Mark Hansen wrote:
    >Good grief.
    >Why, then, do you think Gecko-based browsers are in the market?
    >

    Asked and answered.

    >Many, many web sites do not have good HTML.
    >

    Specifically, those sites have code built for Internet Exploder.
    If you want to access a page *built* for Internet Exploder,
    just USE Internet Exploder.

    >Perhaps the foundation should take the browsers off the market
    >until all the site developers get their act together and start
    >writing good HTML code?
    >
    >The fact is that if you want to be a browser in today's web,
    >you need to be able to work in today's web.
    >

    aka "Bend over and take it".
    aka "Just surrender to The Borg".

    I choose to boycott garbage sites.
    If you can't find the content elsewhere, register your complaint
    --with those who have the power to change things.
    Coming here and complaining isn't going to change anything
    about their broken site.

    I assure you that the browser developers
    aren't interested in making the browser M$-compliant.
    That would be stupid.

  6. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    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.

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

    >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.

    >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.

    >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.

    >>Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
    >>>while Microsoft got rich on the other 90%.
    >>>

    >>M$ got their wealth illicitly
    >>http://google.com/search?q=cache:w10...#39;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.

    >
    >"Machiavellian"?
    >I'm not saying we should connive to take over the world.
    >

    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 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.

    >>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.

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

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

  7. Re: IE not working ! :-)

    Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
    >In my work I need to monitor local deaths at this site:
    >
    >

    Ah. Clerical staff. That explains a lot.

    It's hard enough for a technical staff to implement
    the specs that the customer's contract list.
    When the marketing boys get their fingers into things
    and start expanding the *want* list,
    things get exponentially more difficult.

    The job of a browser:
    Take the HTML code on an HTML page
    and translate it into a corresponding display on the screen
    (or do whatever is asked by that STANDARD code).

    What you want:
    Besides rendering STANDARD code,
    make provisions in the browser's codebase
    for all 237 ways that a clumsy page builder can screw that up.
    Now multiply that by the number of HTML instructions available.

    Like I said: exponentially more difficult.
    If you had ever done any technical development work,
    you would see what a burden that puts on the browser developers
    --and it is completely UNNECESSARY.

    A method to resolve this:
    Have the browser developers incorporate
    the HTML Validator extension into the core code.
    When a crap site is encountered, a box pops up.
    If the page has <20 errors, the box is small.
    If the page has 20 < errors > 100, the box is larger.
    If the page has >100 errors, the box covers the screen and says
    "THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PAGE IS A MORON.
    YOU WILL NEED TO USE A WEB BROWSER
    DEVELOPED BY MORONS TO VIEW IT.

    There. Problem solved.

+ Reply to Thread