Re: firefox browser is better
From: Martin (martin_nospam_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Martin: "Re: Is it 'safe' to defrag under XP?"
- Previous message: Byte: "RE: Installing my video driver again..."
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: firefox browser is better"
- Next in thread: Martin: "Re: firefox browser is better"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:55:09 +0000 (UTC)
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Trish wrote:
>
>>I use Firefox - the only time I use IE is for badly written pages
>>that will not 'work' on Firefox, and the Windows update site (they
>>may not be mutually exclusive).
>>
>>--
>>Trish
>>Dublin, Ireland
>
>
>
> Those pages aren't necessarily "badly written," it's just as
> likely that Firefox simply lacks the features to properly display
> them.
If a site can't pass the world wide web consortium's validator, it is,
by definition, badly written.
>A critical lapse is the lack of ActiveX controls that are used
> on a great many web pages.
I agree that there is no excuse for that, just as there is no excuse for
java script. If an author can't do it without needing scripting, it
shouldn't need doing.
At least with java script it's an open rather than closed standard, so
there is some excuse in using it. There is no excuse for ActiveX, ever.
>
- Next message: Martin: "Re: Is it 'safe' to defrag under XP?"
- Previous message: Byte: "RE: Installing my video driver again..."
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: firefox browser is better"
- Next in thread: Martin: "Re: firefox browser is better"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
