Posted by Michael Fesser on 06/11/07 15:55

..oO(Paul)

>> You are aware you are stating here all modern browsers are
>> standards-compliant to the same extent ? What standards did you have in
>> mind? Or which branch of the multitude of universes parallel to ours?
>
>No, I am stating that if you do everything up to the standards (for
>example, XHTML) then your pages will be fine in most situations.

Wrong. IE for example doesn't support XHTML. It doesn't even fully
support HTML. So what "standards" are you talking about, when using an
IE engine as ZPG's internal browser? And with all the proprietary crap
like ActiveX enabled there's no standards compatibility at all.

>Try
>to see the Google page in IE and FF, see much difference?

That's not because the page is standards-compliant, but because of the
browser's capabilities to turn even the worst crap into something which
is at least usable. If you force a browser into standards-compliant
mode, the Google site looks ... a bit different ...

>Actually
>there are just two browsers, and one of them has two versions (guess
>which one I am talking about :)

Either you're kidding or you don't know what you're talking about. There
are more than two browser engines and even more browsers that make use
of them. Not to mention all the other non-graphical user agents.

>It adds. Here is the comparison with WAMP:
>
>http://www.zzee.com/php-gui/#vsWamp

Some of these points are just plain wrong, others are not a real issue.

Micha

[Back to original message]