Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 10 November 2003 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a "black-list" at Mozilla.org.il ?
i mean:
http://www.mozilla.org.il/evangel.shtml
Yes, and its a very good list, unfortunatly it only checks for Mozilla
compliance. I would really like a list that also c
On Monday 10 November 2003 13:42, Oded Arbel wrote:
> I of course completly disagree. by definition a browser should always make a
> best effort in trying to display a web page, no matter how broken it is.
Sure thing. Content consumers (web browsers) should as lenient as possible,
but we are talk
On Monday 10 November 2003 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Isn't there a "black-list" at Mozilla.org.il ?
> i mean:
> http://www.mozilla.org.il/evangel.shtml
Yes, and its a very good list, unfortunatly it only checks for Mozilla
compliance. I would really like a list that also checks for othe
On Monday 10 November 2003 13:14, Ely Levy wrote:
> and personaly I very much disagree with khtml way of imitating ie behavor
> instead of not displaying webpage which is not by the standart
I of course completly disagree. by definition a browser should always make a
best effort in trying to disp
Isn't there a "black-list" at Mozilla.org.il ?
i mean:
http://www.mozilla.org.il/evangel.shtml
Oren Maurer
---
Walla! Mail, Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Walla! at:
http://mail.walla.co.il
Maybe some opensource browsers doesn't support teh standart well
but then you need to send a bug report to the project not change the site
there are way too many opensource browsers and there would be a lot more
of them. You cant go by the whims of each browser or blame sites for
bad programming of
that's what w3c is for,
they also have validators on their site to check if the site
is compatible.
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Amichai Rotman wrote:
> Hi Linuxers,
>
> How about starting, through Hamakor, some kind of a rating / certification
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 10 November 2003 11:27, you wrote:
> > The validator, only the validator, nothing but the validator!
>
> yea, yea, of course. and still you can't reasonably expect that all web
> sites in the entire world will be made to be 100% validator fri
On Monday 10 November 2003 12:24, Oron Peled wrote:
> So, yes for FOSS compliant list if it includes a the "correct" guidline
> for compliance: "Validate your site against the validator, and you'll save
> time validating against multitude of browsers/versions"
I'll make sure to include this guidel
On Monday 10 November 2003 12:12, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >yea, yea, of course. and still you can't reasonably expect that all web
> > sites in the entire world will be made to be 100% validator friendly.
>
> It's easier to conform to one browser (the validator) than to each and
> every browser o
On Monday 10 November 2003 11:27, Oded Arbel wrote:
> yea, yea, of course. and still you can't reasonably expect that all web
> sites in the entire world will be made to be 100% validator friendly.
No. But their deviation can be *objectively* determined.
> My point (which you managed to completly
Oded Arbel wrote:
I could go further and state that there are pages that FOSS browsers render
exactly as the author intendeded, while at the same time if you call
Validator on them you'd get screens full of errors.
And will those pages work with PDA browsers? How about brile browsers
for th
On Monday 10 November 2003 10:22, Oron Peled wrote:
Yes, I agree with all of what you said up until now. standards are important,
fix the browsers, bla bla. I was just stating the facts.
> > ... and also a lot of pages that will completly fail any validator but
> > still work reasonably well.
On Monday 10 November 2003 09:23, Oded Arbel wrote:
> ... one major problem with W3 validator (and the people who keep refering
> to it as a compatibility testing tool ;-) is that it has a very high
> Signal/Noise ratio. It complains about a lot of stuff that browsers today
> take for granted and
On Monday 10 November 2003 08:25, Tal, Shachar wrote:
> I believe w3c.org has an HTML/XHTML/strict etc. validator online, so this
> can be verified online by users
> > How about starting, through Hamakor, some kind of a rating /
> > certification
> > system for Israeli Web sites to check if they
age-
> From: Amichai Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:32 PM
> To: Linux-IL
> Subject: "GNU/Linux Compatible" Initiative
>
>
> Hi Linuxers,
>
> How about starting, through Hamakor, some kind of a rating /
> certi
Hi Linuxers,
How about starting, through Hamakor, some kind of a rating / certification
system for Israeli Web sites to check if they are GNU/Linux / Open Source
friendly.
I mean, can be viewed with GNU/Linux tools (like Konqueror, Mozilla etc.)
without any special changes.
Maybe Web sites
17 matches
Mail list logo
