|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 04/21/07 05:49
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
>
>> Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
>> close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
>> understood?
>
> I understand you perfectly. You created a problem for yourself, patched
> it up with a bunch of half-baked workarounds, and now you expect us all
> to test those workarounds without pointing out that they wouldn't have
> been necessary if you hadn't created the problem in the first place.
I never created a problem. I just found a way to solve it, but I wasn’t
sure if my methods worked on only my own machines, or if they were
successful beyond what I had at my fingertips.
>> At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem.
>
> What makes you think I care what you asked for? I'm posting for the
> benefit of those who might learn from your mistakes. You can choose to
> be among that group or not - it makes no difference to me either way.
I made no mistake aside from the misguided *desire* to support Internet
Explorer.
The XHTML is semantically and structurally correct. The page is being
served up with application/xml for IE, which - while not perfect - is
still allowed for XHTML. The DOCTYPE has been extended in the very
manner that the W3C recommends. The link comes up on all my versions of
IE without any XSLT parsing errors at all.
The entire purpose of my original post was: does anyone else with just
one version of IE installed get an XSLT parse error? If so, please
contact me.
And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
and get appropriate replies that are on-topic to the original question.
Too bad none of your replies met this criteria.
>> The problem was already fixed
>
> There would have been nothing to "fix" if you hadn't created the problem
> in the first place. There would have been no "fix" to test if you hadn't
> patched the symptoms with half-baked workarounds instead of addressing
> the real problem.
>
> sherm--
>
Then what about all of those people with CSS “fixes” and “hacks” that
need to be tested by other people, despite all relevant browsers being
in “standards compliance” mode? The IE peekaboo bug is just one example.
The Holly Hack is another that comes to mind.
Creating a site with a new and unique design is all about creating,
testing, modifying and testing again. Eventually, requests will have to
be made to see if other people get the same results that you do, because
it is unlikely that you can cover *all* of the variables with just the
tools at your disposal. Even Microsoft, the biggest software company in
the world, beta-tests their products on volunteers who are willing to
check it out.
I have done nothing more or less than that. And yet, I get flamed by you
for it; having my implementation (my “half-baked workaround”) held up
and proclaimed far and wide as an example of what *not* to do, rather
than seeing if it really is effective and reporting conditions under
which it is not.
Why?
Why attack so vehemently, without even checking the link with your own
copy of IE to see if I may actually be on to something?
The problem is not me. And it is not my “half-baked workaround”.
The problem is you and your attitude. It stinks.
Cheers.
...Geshel
--
***********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
***********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|