I view it as a firefox fixing incorrectly written pages. It's nice that FF has a "fix-it" option, but ultimately, the author shoudl fix her site. The single-byte Latin scripts are semi legible, so that is enough for me.
When a website breaks because 3rd party cookies go way of dodo or the page relies on ActiveX, shoudl Firefox provide an option to run it?
I understand that some people have different opinion, but any page past 2005 should have encoding in order and older sites should fix their sites.
“Should” is not “is”. As a user, I run into broken sites regularly enough. I still want to be able to see them. I get the “let’s bury all broken legacy and hacks as quickly as possible” mindset, but when it comes to the issue of the main text of a page being unreadable, I think there is a high bar.
> older sites should fix their sites.
A lot of the reason they are considered “older sites” in the first place is because they are not heavily maintained. The thing to remember about the web is this: not all websites are “software” that is maintained. Some of them are static works similar to a movie, with static content.
> The single-byte Latin scripts are semi legible, so that is enough for me.
Did you see the example that I gave of Polish text? I am sorry, but if you feel like reading multiple paragraphs this way is bearable, then we will just be stuck in disagreement.
I did see the text. If it bothered me that much, I would write a proxy that passed HTML through iconv tool before serving it to user (with a dictionary to remember setting for each site).
But more likely, I would stop visiting such site or complain to the owner. Situation doesn't get better by covering up errors.
When a website breaks because 3rd party cookies go way of dodo or the page relies on ActiveX, shoudl Firefox provide an option to run it?
I understand that some people have different opinion, but any page past 2005 should have encoding in order and older sites should fix their sites.