I was incorrect: RSS does not --require-- the XML Prolog, however,
this does not change the fact that Firefox lies on its user
interface and one has no idea what adverse results may occur
when the XML Prolog is missing because the software developers
are lazy liars and do not fix their mistakes
AFTER SIX F*CKING YEARS?
AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT!
JEEESUS THIS IS F*CKING PATHETIC AND I AM *NOT* BASHING FIREFOX
I AM BASHING THE LAZY LIARS WHO ARE DEVELOPING IT BECAUSE I
DO NOT WANT *MY* SOFTWARE SERVICES BLAMED FOR *YOUR* SHIT
"clintonG" wrote in message
> Oh yes FF is lying because it does not in fact display the "document tree
> as shown" as it falsely claims on its user interface when loading raw XML.
> It won't parse the XML prolog into its rendered tree and its a lie to
> claim the document tree is shown when it is not. Therefore in use it also
> hinders, obstructs and corrupts the use of RSS which requires the XML
> prolog to validate.
> If a person does not know any better and tries to copy the raw XML that FF
> has FUBAR my software service gets blamed when its the shitty browser that
> fraudulently misled customers to copy malformed XML causing their RSS to
> fail validation and perhaps not display in other software that will not
> parse invalid RSS. Not to mention pissing them off by failing to maintain
> the tree as formatted raw XML causing them once again to think my work was
> shitty when it is not.
> Which is why as insightful as you may have thought your other suggestions
> to be they cannot be used to work around this "bug" as you call it which
> has apparently prevailed for 5 years already. I don't call that a bug. I
> call that shitty work that has persisted for years and poses a serious
> compromise to the use of RSS.
> There must be some rationale explanation for failing at something for 5
> years because I do understand many developers have put a lot of effort
> into avoiding shitty work but there it is anyway as shitty as it gets.
> I'm a C# .NET developer and have nothing to offer the development of FF
> but otherwise depend on it for web development because IE is so shitty
> itself but at least everybody knows what's shitty about IE and has
> conditional comments to work-around what really makes IE so shitty --and--
> people can trust Microsoft who does not to my knowledge have any outright
> lies on the UI misleading people even further. So somebody ought to send
> the message to Pinnochio and his other FF developer pals eh? At least get
> rid of the lie and if they can't do something well they should not even
> try to do it all like the other crummy browsers that can't parse raw XML
> This is a big thing to me because my business is currently RSS served as
> raw XML and I can't afford to take the blame for shitty browsers so I've
> been compelled to write a shitload of disclaimers as XML comments to cope
> with FF lies on the UI.
> "Zak Owen" wrote in message
>>I would like to throw in my two cents:
>> Firefox isn't "lying," though according to the above bug there are some
>> things that need to hammered out. If you are writing XML to be
>> I would advise using HTML and PRE tags to maintain whitespace &
>> - this way you can make every browser user happy. XML isn't meant to be
>> viewed in any form by a browser, so it is up to the browser developers to
>> decide how to present it. Viewing the source is usually where I want to
>> to copy any kind of code, and in the case of XML I would certainly go
>> first. As stated before, XML is supposed to be a format for organizing
>> for machines to interperet, not humans - thats why its used. If you want
>> readable XML, indentation and all, I would again reccommend some kind of
>> HTML to render your XML as text, at least until this bug is worked out in
>> FF. Even then, that won't fix the other browsers that aren't doing this
>> BEWARE: Your browser may not render files the way you want! So, either
>> to IE, write a FF extension, help fix this bug, or make some other
>> If you NEED something to display a certain way, you should never rely on
>> someone else's code (i.e., the code that makes up FF, Safari, etc) to do
>> properly - always assume that you must make the data presentable yourself
>> via means that will render correctly across all browsers.
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Martijn
>>> This sounds like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175946 ,
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:55 PM, clintonG wrote:
>>> > I've just learned Internet Explorer is the only browser that actually
>>> > correctly renders raw XML as the developer intends. Firefox lies and
>>> > the XML prolog and then displays a styled tree. This of course will
>>> > a person who does not know they must view source to copy and paste the
>>> > XML. Furthermore, the raw XML in the source no longer has white-space
>>> > indentation preserved.
>>> > Can Firefox be configured somehow to stop lying and render raw XML
>>> > correctly? XML is supposed to be a "READABLE" file format and
>>> > discovering
>>> > this has been a big surprise that I observer Opera and Safari also
>>> > fail
>>> > do correctly.
>>> > So either Internet Explorer renders raw XML correctly maintaining the
>>> > objective of generating a "READABLE" file format or all of the other
>>> > browsers are FUBAR.
>>> > What's the facts here and how do I provide people with VALID raw XML
>>> > they
>>> > can read that has well-formed white-space and indentation as a
>>> > tree as XML was intended to be displayed when it was created?
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > dev-web-development mailing list
>>> > firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-web-development
>>> Martijn Wargers - Help Mozilla!
>>> irc://irc.mozilla.org/qa - /nick mw22
>>> dev-web-development mailing list
>> Zak Owen