Re[2]: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Hello Gunlaug, Saturday, November 20, 2004, 12:05:19 AM, you wrote: IE6 should be seen as an obstacle from a users point of view, as well as from a web designer's position. I'm not a user and I don't design for IE6 either. Although I think I agree with you, the reality is that the vast majority of web users are using IE6. You may as well say that Windows has bugs. It does, but lots of people use it. My approach is to design pages that look good, are standards-compliant and accessible, but I also have to make sure that they work well in IE6, because that's what most users will be looking at them with. -- Best regards, Iainmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Iain Harrison wrote: Hello Gunlaug, Saturday, November 20, 2004, 12:05:19 AM, you wrote: IE6 should be seen as an obstacle from a users point of view, as well as from a web designer's position. I'm not a user and I don't design for IE6 either. Although I think I agree with you, the reality is that the vast majority of web users are using IE6. You may as well say that Windows has bugs. It does, but lots of people use it. My approach is to design pages that look good, are standards-compliant and accessible, but I also have to make sure that they work well in IE6, because that's what most users will be looking at them with. Iain, I follow you 100% and I think I wrote something very similar, but I don't design _for_ IE6! My point is that IE6 is less of a problem in quirks mode, as the thread goes. Fixing IE/win is the easy part, so why complicate it if no visitor can see the difference? To be precise: - I _design_ using standards in Opera, Moz/FF and Lynx (in whatever order), and includes Safari in that group although I haven't got a Mac yet (will soon). - I have almost made an artform out of whipping IE5.0+/win into presenting any ordinary creation as a standard compliant look-alike. Advanced creations isn't possible in IE/win, but I know how to cheat if I want to. I handcode everything, and I have as much control as I'd like when it comes to any browser I can get up on my screens/OS (win2K-pro). I share my knowledge about how to fix IE5/IE6 on win into something that looks like compliance with standards-- through hacking or whatever-- in any mode-- over at css-d. However, I often have doubts if I'm doing anyone a favor by doing so. It's fun though... :) regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
I find your take on all this very interesting as it is my mindset to try and find the happy medium that you seemingly are now accomplishing. I was wondering if you can give links to some of your sites and/or to some of the discussions on css-d. IMHO your approach to throwing IE5/IE6 to the dogs (so to speak) makes sense, though I'd prefer that those browsers were used by or preferably eaten entirely by the dogs. Enjoy your upcoming Mac, I know you will. wayne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Wayne Godfrey wrote: I find your take on all this very interesting as it is my mindset to try and find the happy medium that you seemingly are now accomplishing. I was wondering if you can give links to some of your sites and/or to some of the discussions on css-d. The thread should tell that I don't design web sites for a living. I'm just another retired, and bored, software-man. Web-carpentry beats computer-games and crossword-puzzles. site: http://www.gunlaug.no/ (partly bilingual-- a design-mix ready for re-design) author: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/main_author.html (where I test out some new ideas at the moment) You might find http://www.css-discuss.org/ interesting. Not much discussion about quirk mode for IE6 though. IMHO your approach to throwing IE5/IE6 to the dogs (so to speak) makes sense, though I'd prefer that those browsers were used by or preferably eaten entirely by the dogs. Enjoy your upcoming Mac, I know you will. So I've been told by many. Hope to have an iMac up and running before x-mas (have already paid for it). Now I only have a dual-processor high speed multi-tasking workstation with multiple screens, and support-units with more screens-- all running win2K-pro. Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Wayne Godfrey wrote: Enjoy your upcoming Mac, I know you will. So I've been told by many. Hope to have an iMac up and running before x-mas (have already paid for it). Now I only have a dual-processor high speed multi-tasking workstation with multiple screens, and support-units with more screens-- all running win2K-pro. Not bad for a carpenter. ;-) I think your iMac will fall silent in such company. :-D Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a good browser should-- in quirks mode. It's really weird. On one side (Robert Scoble's IE wishlist entries) developers are screaming that IE should adhere to standards (box model, XHTML as application/xhtml+xml etc), but when there's actually some progression, you stick to the nineties' quirks approach. ;-? I don't belong to the group of screaming developers. Hi Georg, Sorry for this misunderstanding --I didn't mean to group you in any way. It's just that I was a bit amazed about your view when in general, the web standards 'society' regards IE as the largest obstacle in standards-compliant webdesign. To me it seems that 'we as webdesigners' (pro or amateur doesn't matter) should show some appreciation towards MS for steps they do take, not just complain about what they don't do. I _stick to_ the browsers which are giving me what I want; Opera, Moz/FF, Safari... If Scoble wanna know what I want, he can surf over to W3C and take a look. The rest is just noise-- to me. I only support IE/win because I can, not because it matters to me. IE6 is less of a problem in quirks mode, because it doesn't need so many alterations to a page that works well when developed in Opera and the other good browsers. I don't like to kill browser-bugs in more versions than I have to. Guess I'm lazy. :) I can understand that you want to minimize the number of hacks and time invested in them, but I don't think a designer's opinion on a browser matters. If a majority of visitors to his clients' site use IE/win, then he should cater for that. And in my opinion he should do that in the best possible way (i.e.: use IE6 standards mode whenever possible). Also; it's easier to code for Lynx when I don't have to change things to make IE6 happy. _That_ matters to me. Could you explain this to me? In the end, the website visitor matters. I think we agree on that. But if I were to choose between using an extra hour to improve a design for 80% (or more) of the visitors or using that hour to improve it for a browser like Lynx (or Omniweb, or iCab, for that matter), I'd go for the 80%. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for semantically correct, usable, accessible and standards-compliant sites that look great and degrade gracefully. But practice --as usual-- is far different from such theory, and every designer has a limited supply of time and money for any given project, so you have to choose how and where you invest your resources. I think those resources should go where they have the largest impact on the largest audience. If / when some software are reasonable in line with the standard code I use, it will be supported by me. That includes everything Microsoft launch-- but only if it is up to the job. Can you point to a case where IE is not 'up to the job'? What constitutes 'not up to the job'? Once again; my preference is Opera-- latest stable version available at any one time. Those of you who make a living out of web design may, reasonably enough, have other preferences and priorities. Which browser I use is not that important (other than that developing in Mozilla is faster and more reliable than in IE, for instance). What the people out there use, who visit the site I design, that's important. Thanks for the example. I'll look into it. Maybe I'll use it-- if IE6 will behave on all the rest. For more background information on the exact differences between IE6 in standards mode and IE5+ quirks: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I don't belong to the group of screaming developers. Hi Georg, Sorry for this misunderstanding --I didn't mean to group you in any way. It's just that I was a bit amazed about your view when in general, the web standards 'society' regards IE as the largest obstacle in standards-compliant webdesign. I'm sure I belong in a group, somewhere. Not sure which one though. :) IE6 should be seen as an obstacle from a users point of view, as well as from a web designer's position. I'm not a user and I don't design for IE6 either. I just whip it into conformance with my wishes, that's all. If it looks too bad in IE/win, well... that's too bad. I can always give it something it _can_ handle-- if I care to spend the extra time. Yes, I am lazy... :) To me it seems that 'we as webdesigners' (pro or amateur doesn't matter) should show some appreciation towards MS for steps they do take, not just complain about what they don't do. I'm not complaining about what MS do or don't do. It's not my problem. I _am_ complaining some about what doesn't work well. IE6 isn't working well, so I throw it back to where it came from: IE5. IE6 still doesn't work well, but it doesn't loose any of its standard functionality when in quirks mode, and it becomes more predictable and is in need of less attention. That's the whole issue in a nutshell-- to me. I can understand that you want to minimize the number of hacks and time invested in them, but I don't think a designer's opinion on a browser matters. If a majority of visitors to his clients' site use IE/win, then he should cater for that. And in my opinion he should do that in the best possible way (i.e.: use IE6 standards mode whenever possible). Standard mode sounds nice, but that doesn't help one single bit on the appearance in IE6. All I see is some extra code and styles, and I don't think visitors care much about what they can't see. What mode a browser is in is caused by doctype-switching. The fact that I switch IE6 into quirks mode doesn't make my use of code and doctype any different. HTML Tidy keeps a close watch on my code and doctype, and the validators are good tools for finding my typing-errors. I recommend both (but I don't like those yellow buttons). Also; it's easier to code for Lynx when I don't have to change things to make IE6 happy. _That_ matters to me. Could you explain this to me? In the end, the website visitor matters. I think we agree on that. But if I were to choose between using an extra hour to improve a design for 80% (or more) of the visitors or using that hour to improve it for a browser like Lynx (or Omniweb, or iCab, for that matter), I'd go for the 80%. Yeah, I'm a demanding personality. :) More on the subject: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/main_author.html (still testing that design btw.) I can't cover all browsers because I don't have access to them all. But since I don't get a penny for what I'm doing, I might as well have some fun in my attempts to cover as many as I can. It doesn't hurt my bottom-line, you know. Also-- more important-- I have visitors who are in need of accessible web pages, and some who need knowledge about how to improve access on their own sites. That makes it even more fun to try to find the balance between good access and graphical styling / design. I don't have to choose, because I've found that coding for Lynx (or similar) actually provides me with more solid page-structures for all sorts of visual styling. So why make choices when I can have double of both and save some time while I'm at it? I don't need to spend 5 minutes on Lynx in the process of creating a new web design. However, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the use of time spent on IE/win... but it's more or less routine now so it doesn't take all that long once a web page is up and running in a standard compliant browser. Guess it's the power of standards that's kicking in, and 25 years of software creation and manipulation. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for semantically correct, usable, accessible and standards-compliant sites that look great and degrade gracefully. But practice --as usual-- is far different from such theory, and every designer has a limited supply of time and money for any given project, so you have to choose how and where you invest your resources. I think those resources should go where they have the largest impact on the largest audience. I'm somewhat relaxed on what's semantically correct and valid and all that. It matters, but it isn't ruling my day. However, I won't move or change one single (x)html element to suit _one_ weak browser if it disturbed the sequence in any good browser. I wouldn't misuse html-elements to achieve visual appearance either, if I can find the right element for that particular use. That part is slightly confusing at times, but I do my best. W3 documents and browser-support makes good reading. This is not theory-- it's a
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? I normally avoid quirks mode, but recently I had a client who insisted on different coloured scrollbars in different sections of the site. The demo pages worked straight away, but it took me ages to figure why it didn't work on my pages... then answer of course being that a non-standard IE feature (like different coloured scrollbars) requires the page be in quirks mode. So the answer is... yes. If required. woric PS: Those melbourne folks who've heard me complain about the awful website I did recently can probably guess which site it is, but I am certainly not going to post it onto the list. The sooner the website dissapears, the better. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Terrence Wood wrote: Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? Yes, always... :) No, only if it's necessary and unavoidable, e.g. in Eric B. Bednarz's fixed-positioning solution: http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/. I have seen this done on a couple sites (ok...one), where the site has a comment in the first line before the doctype ( = quirks mode ).the notion of doing this seems attractive at first glance because you can lump IE5, 5.5 and 6 together and develop for a single IE box-model. If you want to flip IE6 into quirks, the only way would be to place an XML declaration before the DTD. As far as I know, no other elements are allowed before the DTD. Are there any other benefits/limitations of doing this? IE6 seems to be more stable and predictable in quirks mode than in its almost standard mode. I use IE-expressions to get 'max-width/min'- imitations to work in IE6, and they are almost always killing IE6 in almost standard mode. My gamble: you're referring to 'document.body.clientWidth', whereas this object doesn't exists in IE6/standards mode. Instead, IE6 then uses the DOM-compliant 'document.documentElement' approach. If you use expression() in CSS rules for IE, you should check for IE6 to be in 'CSS1Compat' mode before choosing element notation: width:expression(((document.compatMode document.compatMode=='CSS1Compat') ? document.documentElement.clientWidth : document.body.clientWidth) 780 ? 780px : auto); (Just an example.) I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a good browser should-- in quirks mode. It's really weird. On one side (Robert Scoble's IE wishlist entries) developers are screaming that IE should adhere to standards (box model, XHTML as application/xhtml+xml etc), but when there's actually some progression, you stick to the nineties' quirks approach. ;-? Jeroen -- vizi fotografie grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
It does take a lot of time to debug for 3 iterations of IE, and if the only benefit of IE6 standards mode is a fixed box model then it really is a disservice to paying customers to have an additional layer of CSS development/debugging which can be 'fixed' with a one liner @Phillipe... I have 10-15% of IE5 browsers, and in fact a couple of my sites still see visits from IE 4.5. Though I have seen any real world brwoser stats for around 6 months. Terrence Wood. Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: It's really weird. On one side (Robert Scoble's IE wishlist entries) developers are screaming that IE should adhere to standards (box model, XHTML as application/xhtml+xml etc), but when there's actually some progression, you stick to the nineties' quirks approach. ;-? Jeroen - *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a good browser should-- in quirks mode. It's really weird. On one side (Robert Scoble's IE wishlist entries) developers are screaming that IE should adhere to standards (box model, XHTML as application/xhtml+xml etc), but when there's actually some progression, you stick to the nineties' quirks approach. ;-? I don't belong to the group of screaming developers. I _stick to_ the browsers which are giving me what I want; Opera, Moz/FF, Safari... If Scoble wanna know what I want, he can surf over to W3C and take a look. The rest is just noise-- to me. I only support IE/win because I can, not because it matters to me. IE6 is less of a problem in quirks mode, because it doesn't need so many alterations to a page that works well when developed in Opera and the other good browsers. I don't like to kill browser-bugs in more versions than I have to. Guess I'm lazy. :) Also; it's easier to code for Lynx when I don't have to change things to make IE6 happy. _That_ matters to me. If / when some software are reasonable in line with the standard code I use, it will be supported by me. That includes everything Microsoft launch-- but only if it is up to the job. Once again; my preference is Opera-- latest stable version available at any one time. Those of you who make a living out of web design may, reasonably enough, have other preferences and priorities. Thanks for the example. I'll look into it. Maybe I'll use it-- if IE6 will behave on all the rest. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
From: Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] [...] I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a good browser should-- in quirks mode. It's really weird. On one side (Robert Scoble's IE wishlist entries) developers are screaming that IE should adhere to standards (box model, XHTML as application/xhtml+xml etc), but when there's actually some progression, you stick to the nineties' quirks approach. ;-? Jeroen, I agree with you...the mind boggles. Anyway, if the whole quirks mode thing is only used to throw IE into the old box model, why not simply circumvent the problem by not using padding? This way, the width in both broken and compliant box models is exactly the same. Sure, it may need a little bit more creative work in the XHTML, but nothing too difficult and/or semantically incorrect in most cases. I haven't had to use box model hacks or anything else for quite a while...it all comes down to some careful planning and execution. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Patrick Lauke wrote: Anyway, if the whole quirks mode thing is only used to throw IE into the old box model, why not simply circumvent the problem by not using padding? If that _was_ the only difference that caused problems, yes I would go along with that. You are describing the solution I use for all IE/win versions. However, that's not enough to make IE6 behave like a good browser should, so I still would need 2 versions of CSS-corrections and/or I would have to code for IE6. I will _never_ do that. This way, the width in both broken and compliant box models is exactly the same. Sure, it may need a little bit more creative work in the XHTML, but nothing too difficult and/or semantically incorrect in most cases. I haven't had to use box model hacks or anything else for quite a while...it all comes down to some careful planning and execution. That creative work in XHTML is the problem... I use ordered source-code, because I want the sequence of content to be correct (the way I want it) even if no CSS or other rearrangement-methods are used. For some strange reason, IE6 won't play in the same team as the other browsers; Opera, Moz/FF, Safari, and IE5/win. I agree with your careful planning and execution approach, but I don't think doing it for _one single browser_ is the right approach when it can be avoided with one single line on top in my source-code. Side note: I create what some call complex page-structures, because all the good browsers allow me to, and I won't change that because of one browser-version. Also: last time I looked, W3C's homepage also forced IE6 into quirks mode. I don't know why... regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? I have seen this done on a couple sites (ok...one), where the site has a comment in the first line before the doctype ( = quirks mode ).the notion of doing this seems attractive at first glance because you can lump IE5, 5.5 and 6 together and develop for a single IE box-model. Are there any other benefits/limitations of doing this? cheers Terrence Wood. -- *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
I have forced Quirks mode for certain browsers in the past, I became quite an involved approach. My current goal is to use a robust xhtml/css layout and use a minium of hacks I am inspired by the concept of a sequence of css hacks to deliver certain styles to certain browsers www.stopdesign.com - and search for css hack. I have not yet had the time to read, lab test or in any way get indepth with the issues ideas put forward. This is partly due to the utterly nonsensical notation used in some hacks. My thoery is that in the past (old skool days) sites were lashed together relying on unstandard code which often branched in x number of directions this approach held its own quarks and issues. Content was locked up in tables etc. Now my new skool approach is (or soon will be - its still being honed) is to lessen the number of hacks use standard code and say to hell with bad browsers - I am still find numerous issues with it, annoyingly I had such a sweet method for producing table based layouts fluid effiecent quick although site were a lot harder to maintain. The nu skool method means sites need a more progressive on going approach to design and maintenance is easy. Also I would say that Stop Design is using a form of css slicing, the site is near perfection imo SS Terrence Wood wrote: Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? I have seen this done on a couple sites (ok...one), where the site has a comment in the first line before the doctype ( = quirks mode ).the notion of doing this seems attractive at first glance because you can lump IE5, 5.5 and 6 together and develop for a single IE box-model. Are there any other benefits/limitations of doing this? cheers Terrence Wood. -- Thx Sam aka [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.ss29.co.uk t: 07958 322 010 --- Passion Inspires Creativity ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
Terrence Wood wrote: Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? Yes, always... :) I have seen this done on a couple sites (ok...one), where the site has a comment in the first line before the doctype ( = quirks mode ).the notion of doing this seems attractive at first glance because you can lump IE5, 5.5 and 6 together and develop for a single IE box-model. Are there any other benefits/limitations of doing this? IE6 seems to be more stable and predictable in quirks mode than in its almost standard mode. I use IE-expressions to get 'max-width/min'- imitations to work in IE6, and they are almost always killing IE6 in almost standard mode. I know of no limitations in IE6 when doing this, and it saves some coding too. The improved box-model isn't reason enough to debug several versions of IE/win. IE/win can be made to almost behave like a good browser should-- in quirks mode. regards Georg http://www.gunlaug.no/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] forcing IE6 into quirks mode
On 18 Nov 2004, at 11:08 am, Terrence Wood wrote: Does anyone on this list deliberately force IE6 into quirks mode? I'm toying with the idea myself - 'cause, as far as I can see, IE6 pseudo standards mode is lots of pseudo, lots of instability, and hence mountains of head ache and wasted time on testing. I have seen this done on a couple sites (ok...one), where the site has a comment in the first line before the doctype ( = quirks mode ).the notion of doing this seems attractive at first glance because you can lump IE5, 5.5 and 6 together and develop for a single IE box-model. Are there any other benefits/limitations of doing this? As far as Javascript goes, I don't think there is a problem, as far as CSS is concerned, there is the box-model problem of course (but one has to deal with that anyway). There are also some differences in parsing errors in IE 5.x with escape characters, if you use those to filter out, but there are better ways. One thing I have some doubts is the use of conditional comments. As a side note - how are the access numbers for IE 5.x ? (for commercial sites, that is). On my side, IE5.0 is very low (2% at worst or is that at best ?), IE 5.5 still hovers around 10-12%. Philippe ---/--- Philippe Wittenbergh now live : http://emps.l-c-n.com/ code | design | web projects : http://www.l-c-n.com/ IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
