|
|
Posted by Bruce Grubb on 04/27/06 18:16
In article <1146138351.694258.318120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
> > Bruce Grubb wrote:
> >
> > > If you have to 'hack' the HTML to get IE to behave correctly then odds are
> > > you are not writing to the standard.
> >
> > On most non-trivial pages, IE (for Windows) will not cope with
> > standards-compliant HTML.
>
> These two statements are not contradictory.
>
> > For example, your standards-compliant HTML page might have an <IMG>
> > element that loads a standards-compliant PNG image with alpha-
> > blended transparancy.
>
> So don't use PNGs with alpha. You're still compliant, you haven't
> hacked anything, IE is happy.
>
> You rarely need to "hack" HTML (in the non-MIT) sense to make it work
> with IE, but a good HTML hacker (in the MIT sense) knows what subset of
> the standard is supported by IE. This is still compliant and it also
> works for IE - everyone is happy
Except not all that subset is compliant with the standard. Conditional
comments is one such example as show in the "very very sad: most browsers
are broken :(" thread <http://tinyurl.com/qbhsx>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|