🚀 go-pugleaf

Verily, verily nguyen@netspace.net.au (Jim Nguyen) didst write on 29
Apr 1998 01:27:14 GMT in
nz.comp:<6i5vli$8c6$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...

>DRS (simpsond@removethis.tig.com.au) wrote:
>: I'm far from being any sort of 'wannabe', having been a professional
>: programmer for years.  What kind of control do I have over the code?  That
>
>Oh yes. Of course you are. Otherwise we'd think you're an incredible 
>poser and a wannabe right?
>
>: question shows that you are not a professional programmer.  WYSIWYG editors
>
>Well no. I'm specifically a hardware and networking person. I thought a 
>long time ago that I was on this Earth once and wasting that time to 
>program things and getting anxiety attacks, nervous break downs, violent 
>fits etc over some html compatibility problems was utterly pointless 
>existence reserved for arses like yourself.
>
>: have a number of problems with the code they produce, not least of which is
>
>Like?...
>
>: that they tend to use the latest and greatest constructs even where they are
>: not supported by many browsers and often not by W3C.  You prove your
>
>Well because you belong in your html elitist (wannabe) fairy land such 
>miniscule divergence from the standard from the big two causes cranial 
>throbbing whereas the rest of browsing humanity barely notices or cares. As 
>it is, adherence to the html standard is a non-issue because both 
>companies have not gone off the rails. 

Excuse me, there are a lot of other browsers and platforms that aren't
driven by Wintel! Why let Microsnot drive the implementation because
their aim is to monopolise/control the Internet.

>The way I see it if the user's browser isn't up to scratch or still using 
>win3 fuck'em.

Very considerate of you :)

> Obviously they're not interested in any fancy stuff and 
>probably run on a crap machine. 

Or a machine that they can afford to buy. Schools and community
organisations come to mind.

If we want to make the Internet accessible to all then it has to be
universal. That means supporting a variety of implementations and
platforms. Including older hardware which isn't necessarily obsolete,
just not the latest and greatest. Such hardware is quite cheap these
days and provides opportunities for people wanting a low cost entry to
the net.

>Their software/hdware limitations 
>shouldn't be a shackle to the page maker's creative limits in 
>implementing the latest www shabanggery for the people who have the stuff 
>to appreciate it. 

Who wants MS/Netscape bloatware? Is it absolutely necessary?

(I thought the HTML standards were developed by some committee, not by
Microsoft)

Get a dose of realism mate. The majority of people out there couldn't
give a stuff what you think. But if your page does not work on their
systems you are going to get bad press. That means your page should
work on 640x480 and on non-Java systems.

>Why should advancing vendors waste time back-stepping 
>to cater for people with obsolete technology? 

Why should people be forced to fork out thousands more every couple of
years for the latest and greatest in hardware?

>: I repeat: you are a moron.
>
>You're a wannabe.

What are you, I wonder ?

--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Modify e-mail address by removing .nz
****************************************************
Oppose the NZ Government's back-door ID Card plans
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/privacy/