|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 10/27/06 03:51
John Dunlop wrote :
> GΓ©rard Talbot:
>
>> How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
>> browsers
>
> You wouldn't even need browser sniffing to do that.
>
>> that they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
>> to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)?
>
> I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between layout and
> formatting,
As far as my english understanding goes, I make no distinction between
layout and formatting.
> but functionality isn't rendered. The HTML *document* is
> rendered, rendered according to the *user-agent*.
Correct.
>
> Who is to say what counts as 'rendered as expected'? Expected by who?
By the web author.
> If someone takes it upon themselves to prescribe and proscribe
> different renderings, who granted them the authority to do so?
W3C.
Let me give you an example, a real one. Just today, I dealt with someone
who had this in his webpage:
<DIV style="position: absolute; top: 220 px; left: 20px; ">... some
image ...</DIV>
When the browser is triggered into standards compliant rendering mode,
the rendering is [roughly] the same in 94% of all CSS-capable web
browsers in use out there. But when the browser is triggering backward
compatible rendering mode, then MSIE 6 and MSIE 7 will *_honor_* the
top: 220 px declaration when it should NOT according to CSS1 and CSS 2.1
parsing error conditions and recovery. This is clearly a case covered by
specs. The
top: 220 px;
declaration must be ignored according to CSS specifications.... but it's
not ignored in MSIE 6 and MSIE 7 in bugward compatible more.
>
> The interworking specifications do not restrict the rendering of HTML
> documents, but actually allow for different renderings.
>
Yes. There is a margin of flexibility, especially in different media.
Visual browsers can have different default values for many CSS
properties. E.g.: on MSIE 6, the default margins on the body were 15px
10px and in MSIE 7, they are 8px (for all 4 sides), just like Netscape
6+, Mozilla Suite, Seamonkey, Safari 2.x, Firefox, etc..
> 'We do not recommend that authors limit their creativity, only that
> they consider alternate renderings in their design.' (HTML4.01: 2.4.2)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html#h-2.4.2
>
> 'Providing access to content ... includes enabling users to configure
> and control its rendering' (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/guidelines.html#gl-user-control-styles
>
>> What's so wrong with such invitation?
>
> Nothing is wrong, nothing is right; "wrong" is reductionistic.
>
> Telling users that 'they may consider switching' browsers because of X,
> Y, or Z would distract them from the real content - the reason they're
> there - in much the same way as any mention of the mechanics would do.
>
> Trouble making your pages backwards-compatible?
No trouble. Content and navigation must always be ensured when
designing. Presentation and formatting as intended by the author can not
be ensured though.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|