|
|
Posted by Bruce Grubb on 11/24/76 11:46
In article <4bmpkgF120hl2U1@individual.net>,
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:24:35 +1000, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
> > In article <4bhap4F11i20dU1@individual.net>,
> > Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:58:50 +1000, dorayme
> >> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > You need to go deeper into the thread to see this. IE Mac is
> >> > basically irrelevant to the trouble with IE. The whole thing
> >> > started with Bruce Grubb saying silly things about not needing to
> >> > worry about making special provisions for IE.
> >>
> >> If that's what you really think he's been saying, you haven't ben
> >> reading carefully.
> >
> > What is he trying to say David?
>
> He's saying, and I'm saying in a different way, that you shouldn't break
> your HTML just to get a broken browser to render it the way you want it.
>
> > He has resisted every attempt to
> > show that he understands the pressures of website makers to
> > ensure things behave reasonably in the majority of browsers. he
> > keeps on repeating (and you seem to defend him) that just writing
> > good html will do the trick. What have you been reading of Bruce
> > Grub that gives you a very different picture? What is it?
>
> Well, since you missed it when he wrote it, I can't see that restating
> it would be worth my effort. You know, pearls, swine, that whole
> thing...
>
> >> > IE means IE Win.
> >>
> >> Obviously false given that you're posting in comp.sys.mac.apps.
>
> > This is silly nonsense indeed and is just sad flag waving and
> > misplaced loyalty.
>
> Not at all. You're posting to a mac applications group. It's
> blisteringly obvious to anyone who isn't being intentionally dense, that
> if we're discussing an app in that group, it's a Mac version of said
> app.
>
> > In the context of making a website (say a
> > commercial one) IE means IE Win and it does not matter what your
> > favourite platform is. This is a hard (and yes, sad) reality of
> > the browsing public and it needs catering to unfortunately. It is
> > a statement about the facts, about hard reality.
>
> In your opinion. In mine, and apparently in Bruce's, a developer has to
> intentionally produce broken HTML in order for it not to render sanely
> on all browsers. His focus seems to be on specs, which is a reasonable
> way to measure it I suppose; mine is on the point that you have to go
> out of your way to pick something that caters to an MS bug for display.
It was totally boneheaded ideas on HTML like the above that caused me to
crosspost to alt.html because there was a similar post on this kind of
nonsense.
The fact of the matter is HTMLing to a bug makes for unstable HTML because
there is no promise that bug will be in the next update. Netscape had this
problem all the time back when it dominated the browser market.
Note I make a distinction between HTML and CSS something supported by w3c
itself: HTML validators and CSS validators are two separate things - it is
quite possible to have good HTML and crappy CSS.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|