Re: another dependency question
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:58:39 +0100
berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>
> Le 26.10.2013 13:37, Reco a écrit :
> > You don't need w3c validator if you have browser compatibility list.
> > This is the way this industry work - you don't have browser they like
> > - you don't use their product.
>
> Fine for me. It's exactly what I'm doing.
> But, saying that opera does not respect standards, without checking if
> the targets you try to use with it are themselves respecting standards
> seems a bit partial, to me.
No, just incomplete. Other browsers aren't that better in that regard -
something is always broken for them too.
> If I consider your statement, then, IE is a standard, since it is used
> by a lot of internal applications. It sure is a standard for people
> developing those applications, but, not a real standard imo.
Of course IE is not a real standard. And at least Oracle's ADF looks
and behaves wrong in IE too (I have to believe users on that part, as I
refuse to use this thing). And even if something works in IE then speed
is suboptimal, and security looks like a Swiss cheese.
> >> > Ok, but. This implies that opera's implementation of HTML standard
> >> is
> >> > flawed somehow, as webpages require additional testing.
> >>
> >> According to what I have read, they usually test their work for IE,
> >> firefox and chrome. For old IE, it is well known fact that standard
> >> is
> >> not respected. But FF and chrome do claim respecting it well, so why
> >> testing in both?
> >
> > If you did browser, did you claim that it doesn't support standards?
> > They need to claim it, or they'll loose users. Heck, even MSFT claim
> > that their browser parody complies with standards.
>
> Indeed. That's why I can not even trust mozilla, even if they are
> maintaining (I won't say making) an open source browser.
There are bad things about Mozilla imo: Agile development of their
Firefox (meaning - something is always broken), designers making the
decisions instead of developers (meaning - huge feature creep), strong
desire to do anything in javascript.
Still, their product works most of the time, and then it doesn't (or
end result is way too ugly) - there's always a Greasemonkey (they call
it userscripts in opera, I beleive).
Firefox is mostly free software, which counts for me.
> > In reality - today HTML5 is a 'moving standard' (meaning, W3C
> > Consortium
> > shove new features in it every day, and they won't stop doin' that).
>
> Wrong. It is a non finished standard. Which means it is not a standard
> currently.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/
Please read chapter '1.5 Development Model'. Those people consider that
even HTML4 is not implemented anywhere. Hence,
> > Claiming compliance to HTML standard is simply marketing.
>
> That's why I do not mind about people using HTML compliance to
> advertise a browser against others. I simply look at my personal uses of
> Internet. Opera was better, on a point that Firefox was worse. So I
> switched. Then, other details here and there avoided me to go back to
> firefox, and things becomes worse by the time.
You have a point here.
> It sounds like a more imaged way to say the same thing as me. Excepted
> the fact that I do no claim to know if Satan is really so bad. I simply
> prefer to make my own opinion myself, instead of trusting religious
> mafias.
I refuse to open that can of worms :) Let's keep this list PG-13 clean.
> > Author has questionable morality, but luckily it
> > doesn't creep into his product. Free (as in libre) software too.
> >
> > Reco
>
> Morality is always questionable. Problems comes when people stop to
> question morality. In every domains. Questioning is the key for
> progressing. One could argue that people who makes or use advertisements
> have questionable morality, too. ( note that I am simply using the same
> vague phrase in the other direction. I do not specially argue for a
> point of view here. )
I was talking about this story:
https://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users
Reply to: