Posted by tshad on 05/20/05 18:46

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200504@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.20.08.00.30.557645@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> tshad wrote:
>
>> Obviously, IE has a different default (as you say) then Mozilla. There
>> is
>> no reason that the default shouldn't be the same for both browsers.
>
> Different defaults is a Good Thing.
>
> IE, for example, has a default background colour for the BODY element of
> white. In Netscape 4.x and below, the default is #999 (grey). In Dillo,
> it's #D6D6C0 (greyish brown).
>
> Default background colour is just another feature that browsers can and
> should compete over.

And why is that a good thing???

If I have elements that are close a grey, because it looks good in IE, then
it may be washed out in Netscape.

I think there are things you should be able to depend on, and if defaults
can be anything - then they are useless as defaults.

IMHO.

I don't want to spend my time trying to memorize all the possible defaults
for each browser and each version. Much of the time I spend trying to find
problems, is because this browser handles this or that object differently
than another browser or their defaults are different - as was the current
case.

Years ago they tried to standardize Unix and never could because none of the
makers of the different versions wanted to give up their extensions. "We
will not deal with anything this is NIH" ! One of the reasons many people
liked Windows over Mac.

One of the nice things about the GUI interface is it gave you a consistant
look and feel. What was nice about the Mac was that you could go from
program to problem and the GUI was the same no matter what the program was.
And Windows has done the same, for the most part.

Then we get into this neat new interface that allows you to be OS free and
allows you to build access to your data and programs without having to worry
about the GUI. But to change basic functionalities and defaults, just to be
different, defeats that whole advantage.

Everyone is trying to get applications off the desktop and onto an
interface. That is fine. But it isn't if you can't depend on the
interface. If I build an application that has to be moved from machine to
machine, that is a hassle, but at least I know what the Screen (interface)
is going to look like.

Again IMHO.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
>

[Back to original message]