|
|
Posted by Bruce Grubb on 04/26/06 05:43
In article
<doraymeRidThis-B0D88D.15450625042006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-F13584.15381125042006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> 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.
> >
> > >We are having
> > > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
> > > for??" thread.
> > >
> >
> > You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.
>
> No! Now I am confused!
Seems you get confused easily.
> My remarks are still true about IE. You are confusing the order
> in which a website maker should do things. The discussion at
> alt.html is mainly about that. You seem to take the absurd
> position that all one needs to worry about is The Standards (W3C
> presumably).
Ideally that is all someone should worry about because HTMLing to bugs is
always going to give you grief. HTML to the standard will in the long run
have far less problems.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|