From: "liorean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 14/12/2007, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No offense, but (imo) anyone who believes what you just wrote is
extremely
naive. While all web developers want standards conformance (whether they
admit it or not), an industry with multiple browsers is not a healthy
industry. No 2 browsers are alike. Every browser has quirks......
Isn't that effort more well spent in actually fixing those bugs,
instead? The goal should IMHO be all browsers supporting the same
HTML/XHTML/XML/XSLT/CSS/JS/DOM/SVG/PNG/whatever without having to
write something specifically to each browser. Reducing the disparities
is a better way to go.
Yes, of course every effort needs to be made to fix and eliminate bugs...
but you answered your question in the last sentence of your first paragraph.
Reducing the disparities is not the same as eliminating disparities. It is
human nature to make mistakes. It's often the best way to learn.
Developers don't WANT to send separate style sheets or scripts for ie.
Developers want ie to get fixed so that it supports those original
style sheets and scripts that are already supported by everyone else.
Op is close enough to the standards and to the other browsers that
they won't break particularly much code out there by fixing those bugs
that are actually bugs. For ie, the situation is different since
fixing those bugs would actually break terribly large amounts of
present code. That's why ie needs conditional comments and compliance
mode switches when other browsers don't.
One bug is all it takes to break a page. One bug is all it takes to make a
client climb all over you. For hobby sites or sites targeted at web
developers this is not a big problem. We understand. But when you develop a
site for a commercial entity, the rules change. I must go under a couple of
assumptions here:
1. All browsers will always have some bugs
2. Some users will always be browsers with an older version
It is for these reasons that all browser makers need to provide developers
with a means of eploying targeted workarounds.
In which way is it better to let developers send code specifically for
fixing a bug, which creates a dependency of that code on the bug in
question, than fixing the bug? If such dependencies are created, they
make it harder to actually fix bugs.
That's a great philosophy for teachers and parents to have. It does not work
so well, however, for businesses. The assumption, again, is that human
nature is imperfect. Mistakes will always be made. So long as there are more
than one browser, there will be unique bugs. It's useless to talk about MSIE
having lots of bugs because it only takes one bug to keep a developer up at
night. The reason I like conditional comments is that once I identify a fix
for IE, I can fix it in a fully insulated way and for specific versions.
I recognize differences of opinion here and am so glad that this discussion
remains civil. The object is always better standards support. I can't change
Opera's mind and while I disagree with their premise, I can only hope that
as this thing runs its course there will be benefits for us web developers
and a better window into the web for all users.
--
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
Extending Dreamweaver - Nav Systems | Galleries | Widgets
Authors: "42nd Street: Mastering the Art of CSS Design"
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
