I often capture web offers into Mozilla Archive File Format ("MAFF"), which is the best way to capture web pages. It's not lossy, and the archive is in zip format. I could upload a MAFF file and rename it to zip, but folks would have to rename it back to MAFF in order for Firefox to know what to do with it.

What about people that use other browsers? You know, like most of the Internet?

Far more people can use IE's MHT file format (including Firefox users), but it apparently has security vulnerabilities. I don't know if the same is true of MAFF.

What about people that use other browsers? You know, like most of the Internet?

Far more people can use IE's MHT file format (including Firefox users), but it apparently has security vulnerabilities. I don't know if the same is true of MAFF.
I'm requesting MAFF because it's the most useful for me; but it would be a good idea for SD to accommodate MHT files as well.

Firefox does support both formats, but MAFF has some advantages over MHT if my memory serves me right. I know MAFF offers the ability to store multiple tabs in one archive. Also, I don't know where the statistics stand with the popular browser for most of the Internet, but seasoned Internet users are using Firefox or some Mozilla derivitive, as IE is lousy in comparison. I would bet that most IE users aren't up to speed on things enough to know what to do with an archive file anyway. Furthermore, I don't believe there are any free MHT plugins for IE (whereas MAFF is a free Firefox plugin)

I'm requesting MAFF because it's the most useful for me; but it would be a good idea for SD to accommodate MHT files as well.

Firefox does support both formats, but MAFF has some advantages over MHT if my memory serves me right. I know MAFF offers the ability to store multiple tabs in one archive. Also, I don't know where the statistics stand with the popular browser for most of the Internet, but seasoned Internet users are using Firefox or some Mozilla derivitive, as IE is lousy in comparison. I would bet that most IE users aren't up to speed on things enough to know what to do with an archive file anyway.
W3C Schools (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) have recently opened up their statistics for public perusal. They show about 20% of their users being on Firefox, which as they note is probably substantially higher than most of the internet. Mozilla is roughly 3%. So under 1/4 of their users would be able to open a MAFF file, and for a site like SD it's probably even fewer.

Plenty of "seasoned Internet users" do not use Mozilla/Firefox. Some use Opera, Safari, and even Internet Explorer. Just because you like a certain browser doesn't mean other users should be punished for not using it.

IE users are being punished no matter what, simply by the nature of all the limitations they've chosen to accept. IE is well behind the times. There is no chance that a seasoned user would choose IE over Firefox, and give up tabbed-browsing and powerful font control. Even when tabbed browsing makes it into the next version of IE, IE is still well behind. Because Firefox is so open, and the developers are part of a sharing community, you have thousands of free plugins to download for it. IE will never match this in Micro$ofts closed off black box, charge a fee for every little thing world.

Opera and Safari were good alternatives in the past, but they are also losing ground to Firefox. Unless a browser comes along that is made compatible with Mozilla plugins, the others will be dusted.

Microsoft has a stranglehold on 92% of the internet community :vomit:. There's no reason for an open community to give special treatment to a platform / empire that deliberately chooses not to play nice with open standards. I say support the open standard way of doing things, and if Microsoft goes its own way to assert its stranglehold, so be it. Let M$ users figure out that they need to get with the program, and stop repeating the mistake Apple made in the 80s and early 90s. You don't hold back on technology simply because folks are behind. Get the latest, support the latest open standards, and let the rest catch up. If this were slickdeals.microsoft.com, then it might be different. But a community free from the control of Gates should be following open standards 100%.

Usually the "punishing" that occurs online is carried out by the hands Microsoft, like when a professor requires a Word Doc paper submission. Yet Microsoft will not share the .doc format (open office developers had to reverse engineer it, which is why it's imperfect). Proprietary closed source companies punish everyone else, keeping people "divided and helpless," as Richard Stallman would say. Support open standards for the greater good, and if Windows users feel punished - good - rightly so. Let them realize that they should support a vendor that is fair and cooperative.

None of that explains why under 1/4 of users (possibly substantially less) should be given preferential treatment.

It doesn't matter who creates the programs or whatever. What matters is that a website doesn't intentionally close parts of itself off from the vast majority of users for no good reason. That is bad web design at its worst.

And from your comments, I'm assuming you haven't really used Opera or Safari. Safari is one of the things I rather like about Apple these days.

Web design is not an arena to make value judgments about whose browser is "right". You accomodate the users you have, no matter what they use.

There's no reason to give special treatment to a piece of open source software just because OMG open source is teh awsome!!!

If usage statistics showed that 90% of SD's userbase was on Lynx, it wouldn't make any sense to post a deal with a scan of a newspaper and no text.

IE users are being punished no matter what, simply by the nature of all the limitations they've chosen to accept. IE is well behind the times. There is no chance that a seasoned user would choose IE over Firefox, and give up tabbed-browsing and powerful font control. Even when tabbed browsing makes it into the next version of IE, IE is still well behind. Because Firefox is so open, and the developers are part of a sharing community, you have thousands of free plugins to download for it. IE will never match this in Micro$ofts closed off black box, charge a fee for every little thing world.

Opera and Safari were good alternatives in the past, but they are also losing ground to Firefox. Unless a browser comes along that is made compatible with Mozilla plugins, the others will be dusted.

Microsoft has a stranglehold on 92% of the internet community :vomit:. There's no reason for an open community to give special treatment to a platform / empire that deliberately chooses not to play nice with open standards. I say support the open standard way of doing things, and if Microsoft goes its own way to assert its stranglehold, so be it. Let M$ users figure out that they need to get with the program, and stop repeating the mistake Apple made in the 80s and early 90s. You don't hold back on technology simply because folks are behind. Get the latest, support the latest open standards, and let the rest catch up. If this were slickdeals.microsoft.com, then it might be different. But a community free from the control of Gates should be following open standards 100%.

Usually the "punishing" that occurs online is carried out by the hands Microsoft, like when a professor requires a Word Doc paper submission. Yet Microsoft will not share the .doc format (open office developers had to reverse engineer it, which is why it's imperfect). Proprietary closed source companies punish everyone else, keeping people "divided and helpless," as Richard Stallman would say. Support open standards for the greater good, and if Windows users feel punished - good - rightly so. Let them realize that they should support a vendor that is fair and cooperative.

You're wrong on a couple points:
IE is well behind the times.
-True

There is no chance that a seasoned user would choose IE over Firefox
-Yes there is, OCX compadibilty (while security risk) is necessary in many environments not to mention that more websites are compadible with IE than FF. I'm not saying its how it should be, but it's the truth.

Because Firefox is so open, and the developers are part of a sharing community, you have thousands of free plugins to download for it.
- Kind of true, however I personally find IE plug in programming easier, partically because it is what I am used to. There are lots of free ones out there too! (just no Microsoft patroled sentral place like there is with WinAmp or FF)

Opera and Safari were good alternatives in the past
-Key word is GOOD. They were never great or at the level of IE. Opera is faster, yes, but that's because it doesn't support a lot of the features IE does... so...

Usually the "punishing" that occurs online is carried out by the hands Microsoft, like when a professor requires a Word Doc paper submission. Yet Microsoft will not share the .doc format (open office developers had to reverse engineer it, which is why it's imperfect)
-Yes, this is more or less true, but the new XML based version of DOC, due out next year (Office 12) WILL be an open format. The Mass Leg is just stupid, there are so many bugs in OO, nor are there any good tools for OO. The format may be open, but do you know any other software that uses it?..... exactly.... Granted there are in Word as well (like pictures for one.. have you EVER gotten it to not explode in your face)


I'm not a huge MS sponsor or developer or something, but just someone who things that bashing big companies just for the sake of doing so is kind of wrong. You have some very valid points, but MS and their software isn't as bad as the FF community would make you believe. It is still the number one used tool for many reasons (ease of use and its abilites), and not just good partnerships with computer manufactures (although that is a big part of it) or the forced standard.

None of that explains why under 1/4 of users (possibly substantially less) should be given preferential treatment. It's evident from this comment that you're not completely aware of what an open standard is. By definition of an open standard, you cannot be considered to be giving "preferential treatment" to an isolated sector when supporting an open standard, because you're working with a mechanism that everyone is welcome (and in fact encouraged) to use. It doesn't matter who creates the programs or whatever. What matters is that a website doesn't intentionally close parts of itself off from the vast majority of users for no good reason. That is bad web design at its worst. Good web design is working with open standards. Bad web design, at its worst, is designing to use a closed standard, where a section of the community is not permitted to understand the underlying language. So one group is at the mercy of a vendor for a black box handout, while others may have to pay to use the technology, while yet another group may be cut off completely because the proprietary technology isn't offered for their platform. And from your comments, I'm assuming you haven't really used Opera or Safari. Safari is one of the things I rather like about Apple these days. I've used Opera in the past, and I currently have Safari. Safari is junk. It's slightly better than IE, but still not tabbed browsing, and check out the lame selection of plugins. If Safari could leverage the massive library of Mozilla plugins, it would stand a chance. But it's just not there. What's more, it has absolutely no mechanism for web page archival. So Safari is left out no matter what archival SD supports. Web design is not an arena to make value judgments about whose browser is "right". Absolutely it is. This is where it's the most important. The presentation for web content is so non-standard, that we have this issue of web pages looking grossly different on one browser than another. Pick up some other browsers when you get a chance, surf around, and you'll see what I mean. It's very important to support open standards on the web for this very reason. Microsoft is trying to cash in on the lack of web standards, and they're driving web developers to side with IE, so they can ruin competing alternatives. Now that there is an alternative that puts IE to shame, this is precisely the time to make value judgments. You accomodate the users you have, no matter what they use. First of all, you have to know your users. The next thing is, you need to understand the business. If you're running a site like SD, you look at the competition, and see that while there are a few competing web sites, they're all unique enough that users have decided pretty quickly which site they will traffic. Is a decision like what web archival attachment to support going to make or break the site - certainly not. SD has freedom here. They can set the standard, and their users will adapt as needed. There's no reason to give special treatment to a piece of open source software just because OMG open source is teh awsome!!! Again, preferential treatment can only be given to proprietary users. All users are welcome to use open source software.