On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Easwar Hariharan
Probably because,then the user won't
care,since he can do his work and
care about standards,openness or anything.If they
don't work,he *might*
the minimum,use Firefox's Report Broken
Website dialog to inform
we can thus reduce the number of IE-only sites
Well we don't need to complain about standards compliance per-say...
Firefox could simply complain that "the designer has made the site
incorrectly and that it may be error prone and hence unsafe to use" or
something to that effect.
'Hall of Shame' really doesn't make much difference to most website
Well,what you said about supporting and informing users about the ineptness
constitutes of a Hall of Fame.Assuming that Mozilla actually does intervene
in the case of broken websites,that intervention goes directly to the web
developer and he's seized of the problem.
Perhaps a browser that can put up with their crap as well
as educate users about their ineptness may change
things a bit.
That said, most designes also tend to get away with it by saying,
"Don't worry, the site is perfectly fine. It seems to be a bug in
Firefox. See, it works fine in IE". So in that case, it could be a
not-so-good idea to support the crap...
Registered Linux user #442065