Le 26.10.2013 13:37, Reco a écrit :
> SunFire X-series ILOM web-interface, for example. Unusable in
opera.
> IBM's HMC web-interface. Unusable in opera.
> Anything based on Oracle's ADF will get you one big 'you're not
> welcome
> here, boo' if you use opera.
> Sadly, some of us need to use browsers to do work, not to surf
> Internets.
Indeed.
I do not have access to those pages, but by curiosity, how do they
pass
the w3c validator? I know that not so many stuff pass it without
errors/warnings, but I am curious. Could it be a site's bug? ( no
trolling here, real question )
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I think ( only supposition here, web dev is not my field at all )
it's
because HTML standard is a little like C++ standard: it does not say
how
things have to be implemented, only a "general description", if you
see
what I mean. So it is needed to test on more than one
implementation,
because behaviors and performances are not same everywhere.
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/ says:
'If C++ has taught me one thing, it’s this: Just because the system
is
consistent doesn’t mean it’s not the work of Satan. — Andrew Plotkin'
Applies to HTML too IMO.
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 think plugins too can be, am I wrong?
You can definitely do it without Firefox restart with a couple of
mouseclicks.
The point was that I feel like
I have more control on how behaves my browser with opera than with
firefox. But, to be honest, that JS option is not very nice to use
in
opera, since you have to: right clic on site, edit website's
preferences, select script tab, check or uncheck the first checkbox
"enable JS", validate, and finally reload.
NoScript, just use it.
Yes, I was not sure about the name.
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. )
--
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/1256b2a2a9b36ebc952f23c49103c...@neutralite.org
