Posted by dorayme on 01/30/05 11:48

In article
<1148397084.549895.325490@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>"
<dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > > More browsers support CSS usably than work with tables and fixed widths
> > > in pixels
> > >
> > > (think mobile devices)
> >
> > If this is true, it is because the way you are counting and
> > restricting the meaning of "usable" and leaving out puzzling
> > visual behaviours .
>
> By "usable" I'm assuming competent CSS coding giving a usable display
> (subject to some rendering variation)
>
Yes, and by "competent CSS coding" you are building in all
knowledge of how to make things work well in IE. This is rather
different to the knowledge needed to make things work in better
browsers. The same competency that is required to render a table
in Firefox serves for IE. IE-Bug-Science deserves its own faculty.

> I accept that this isn't the case for typical sites in existence today,
> but it's achievable with the right skills - and that's my point.
>
> > If you count instances, the overwhelming
> > number are on winboxes on IE on screens at least 14 inches
> > diagonally.
>
> Those are an easy target for usable CSS. They're even a practical
> target for _accurate_ CSS rendering, for any halfway-competent
> professional web developer. IE 4 is a rarity these days - you can't
> seriously claim that it's a commercial problem to maintain
> pixel-accuracy back that far.

Never mind IE 4, or pixel accuracy... lets talk non-crazy
variations across browsers: on this standard, you should be able
to see why folk make remarks like Travis's

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]