|
Posted by bgrubb@zianet.com on 11/24/92 11:46
dorayme wrote:
> In article <bgrubb-DA398B.16451930042006@news.zianet.com>,
> Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> > Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
> > standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
> > x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
> > same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
> > total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the > > decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
> > is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
> > down again.
> >
> > In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
> > share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
> > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
> > coffee people.
>
> These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
> with.
Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
reasonally
website maker should be concerned with. Doing otherwise is stupid. The
reality is bugs change but the standard (ISO/IEC 15445) remains just
that - the standard. And yes ISO/IEC 15445 is more strick about things
than vanilla HTML 4.0.1 but if the browser is SNAFUing HTML 4.0.1 it is
certainly is going to FUBAR the standard.
And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|