|
|
Posted by Bruce Grubb on 04/25/06 20:43
In article <4b6nskFvsorvU1@individual.net>,
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:38:11 +1000, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
> > In article <bgrubb-C596CD.23072724042006@news.zianet.com>,
> > Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.
>
> > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
> > ever see this after what has been said.
>
> Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
> browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to the
> specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
> which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.
>
> You have to go out of your way to limit your audience to IE. Why not do
> it the easy way, which also gives you the most portability?
Exactly the point. And besides you have to be doing some really obscure
stuff for IE to have serious problems. Going for the standard is the way
to go because as previous articles have pointed out HTMLing for version
x.0.1 of browser y can have problems if x.0.2 fixes the bug you just HTMLed
to.
The only sane thing is to HTML to the standard and keep away from as much
'gee wizardry' as you can and go KISS. While the
<http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html> page shows some fun
bugs in IE you have to ask yourself 'In *realistic* web page design how
often will I really run into this?' Well if you are going KISS very little.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|