|
|
Posted by Mimic on 04/27/06 21:08
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:49 +1000, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> In article <4b7htkF10a1lrU1@individual.net>,
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps, but still, you don't break a good part so it fits a bad part.
>
>> Would you and Bruce Grubb please refrain from offering these
>> simple-minded nostrums?
>
> Well, I don't have any control over Bruce, so that's between you and
> him. Thing is, this basic concept was figured out literally centuries
> ago. Just because we're in a digital medium rather than a mechanical
> one doesn't change that basic truth. You don't break something that
> works for everything else, to make it work for one defective part.
> Without this concept,
>
> oh, never mind. Enjoy your broken browser. Any more effort on you is
> claerly wasted. Buh-bye.
>
>
So by your reckoning, we shouldnt "break" out of standards compliance
code in order to accompany a non compliant browser? Even if said browser
accounts for ~80% of the profit margin. Love to see youre business model.
--
Mimic
"I'd rather reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven".
[email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
Help Stop Spam - www.hidemyemail.net
"I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|