nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27 | Re: Great er.. web developers worth a damn code to a standard which every browser ought to interpret.
--
Life is too short to be boring | |
|
 
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Great said by nil  :
er.. web developers worth a damn code to a standard which every browser ought to interpret.
er...nice er...but er...why er...do er...browsers er...not all er...follow er...standards.
er.
Note: You said "ought to interpret"
--
Bipartisan politics has become a tallest midget contest. | |
|
 |
nil
Java Geek
join:2000-11-27
Host:
Webmasters and Dev..
Forum Feature Requ..
| Re: Great said by TheMadSwede :
er...nice er...but er...why er...do er...browsers er...not all er...follow er...standards.
er.
That's cute.
Anyway back on topic, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a browser that offends more than IE when it comes to following standards.
--
Life is too short to be boring | |
|
| |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Great said by nil :
said by TheMadSwede :
er...nice er...but er...why er...do er...browsers er...not all er...follow er...standards.
er.
That's cute.
Anyway back on topic, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a browser that offends more than IE when it comes to following standards.
Thanks.
If you think I'm claiming that IE is compliant, I'm not. But I am saying that browser compliance doesn't mean a lick to users; they want their browser to work. The more browsers the users use, the more browsers we need to develop for -- that is, until all browsers only comply with uniform standards.
Since all browsers don't comply with uniform standards, it's a pain in the rear.
Anyhow, I must not have done a good job of 'splaining myself, but my complaint is against browsers that don't comply, all the while recognizing that the #1 browser that people use does not comply, but still must be developed for because it's the #1 browser that people use.
Whether or not IE is compliant is irrelevant. People use it, you have to consider it.
--
Bipartisan politics has become a tallest midget contest. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Great said by KoolMoe :
Or...
maybe if all designers made all their pages standards compliant so almost every site on the net wouldn't render correctly in IE - perhaps MS would finally be forced to get their act together and abide by the standards?
Here's the deal:
-from my experience IE will render pertty much everything, compliant or non-compliant
-"compliant" browsers( by which I mean non-ie because many of the "compliant" browsers aren't actually fully compliant) render varing levels of non-compliant code.
I've been asking for about a year now, why is a browser that vomits when digesting non-compliant code better than one that handles it seamlessly? I'll answer for you it's not. And I guarantee that the things that IE does not comply to would be added fairly quickly if webmasters started using them.
IE does not write non-compliant html; webmasters do. Lets place the blame where it is due.
--
John Kerry- doing for America whatever it is you want him to do for however long you want him to do it; except if you didn't want him to do it in the first place in which case he never did it. | |
|
| | | | | 
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: Great IE has a number of outright html rendering bugs - where it does the wrong thing with the right html. the workarounds have been there for so long that people forget they are workarounds and assume that is just the way it should be.
as for browsers that try to do the right thing with bad html, yes, sure, but I'd prefer the browser made it clear that it was guessing. That isn't "vomit", that is promoting standards compliance. IE places equal emphasis on bad code as good code - to IE, there are just two (or more) ways to do the same thing.
html has to be unusually broken now to cause opera or firefox to not display anything useful vs IE displaying a good page. The list of sites that are unusable without IE are down to a vanishingly small percentage. | |
|
| | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by Combat Chuck :
Here's the deal:
-from my experience IE will render pertty much everything, compliant or non-compliant
-"compliant" browsers( by which I mean non-ie because many of the "compliant" browsers aren't actually fully compliant) render varing levels of non-compliant code.
The problem is that IE doesn't support a lot of code that is standard. For example, according to standards, any element can utilize the hover pseudo-class. This can allow you to create roll over effects without the use of any JavaScript. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer only supports :hover on links. This means that developers have to resort to JavaScript to support IE.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by KoolMoe :
Or...
maybe if all designers made all their pages standards compliant so almost every site on the net wouldn't render correctly in IE - perhaps MS would finally be forced to get their act together and abide by the standards?
Having a standards compliant site and having it work in IE aren't mutually exclusive. I'm working on a redesign right now of my company's site and I'm making it fully XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS compliant. There are a few quirks that have to be addressed here and there to accommodate IE, and I need to use JavaScript where I wouldn't need to with FireFox, but that doesn't mean that my site won't be compliant.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
·
·