|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/19/07 21:39
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:21
GMT Ben C scribed:
>> I think it still is much that way today, and for that I blame the w3c
>> and all their "optional" guidelines.
>
> Well, they're trying to steer a path between specifying what browsers
> already do and trying to make some sense of it in order to guide the
> evolution of the web without trying to change it overnight.
>
> I think it's working. Most major sites seem to get revamped about
> every 6 months to 2 years, and in the last year or two, many more of
> them have started working in Firefox as well as in IE. And the reason
> is not Firefox's quirks mode (which is fortunately fairly cursory): if
> a page works in Firefox it's quite likely to work OK in any
> theoretical browser that implements the specs correctly and also to
> work OK in Opera and Konqueror/Safari.
>
> But the specs, although mostly not ambiguous, are rather complicated
> and difficult to understand with the result that the browsers don't
> all get them right and a lot of web developers don't really understand
> them either so go back to doing what they're good at, which is
> throwing mud at the wall.
>
> Except for the smart ones of course who read alt.html where everything
> is explained with absolute clarity.
Yeah...
I admit some progress has been been, but I've also read many css specs
stating this or that is at the discretion of the particular useragent.
Rome may not have been built in a day but I do believe it benefitted from a
strongly-focus, not-too-ambiguous goal. I don't really disagree with you
overall but could wish the w3c was a little more "deterministic" in their
"proposals".
--
Neredbojias
A self-made man who worships his creator
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|