On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:58:39 +0100 berenger.mo...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131027110400.281153c6ea3b0cfdcb3e7...@gmail.com
