|
|
Posted by Ben C on 10/10/07 13:49
On 2007-10-10, Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58:38
> GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>
>
>>> Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are
>>> doing a totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where
>>> they include statements something like "...the useragent may
>>> determine how it responds to this condition by..." When one
>>> endeavors to set standards, there is no place for ambiguity. In
>>> addition, their box model sucks and the whole "dom" thing (as now
>>> implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some quirky digital
>>> primeval foible.
>>
>> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
>> reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
>> towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But
>> you are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed,
>> very hard to understand.
>
> Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"?
You have to bear in mind how difficult a job it is, diplomatically as
well as technically. Then you have to ask how could it have been done
better, and if you can't come up with too many ideas, conclude that they
are probably are actually doing a good job.
How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you design?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|