- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:35 +0200
No, no, and no. Author's POV: Mass complaints about _supposedly_ incompatible Web content from incompetent end users would only cause me, as the author, to file a complaint with the browser vendor. The browser should not pretend it is omniscient and it can teach everyone around. Vendor's POV: Browser vendors can and should agree on the basic constructs and provide the relevant publisher's documentation for the good of the Web; advertising the competitors' products would be an unreasonable requirement. User's POV: I am unwilling to help my browser vendor get the page that works for me display correctly in another product I do not intend to use. The warning is obtrusive, it warns about something immaterial and it bears a slight resemblance to a chain letter. Chris -----Original Message----- From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of timeless Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:29 PM To: WHATWG List Subject: Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of <video> capabilities On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > Only the user that actually encounters a Web site deficiency should report > it to the creator/owner (assuming they provided a reverse link). > Otherwise such a report should be ignored as a supposition. mass complaints work better. > Why should browser vendors bother that some pages do not display correctly > in other browsers? for the good of the web. > This is a validator's job, and a validator is an authoring tool. i highly doubt this will work. > That would mean supporting your competitor, wouldn't it? can't we all get along and work for a better web? but yes, it would mean helping your own engine on another profile which might not support the same features.
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 06:10:35 UTC