On 9/30/06, Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote > He was being sarcastic, that was obvious.
Then John C. Bland II wrote >Apparently not. ;-) and the text in question from Jochem: > So next time I find an issue where for instance a bug in IE results in > incorrect rendering, I can just call and I get a bugfix a month later? > That is not my experience with MS support. I think Jochem was simply putting the acid test on Matthews previous support claims (with particular emphasis on the time frame for a fix). It's certainly not wrong to test the validity of a particular statement while meeting the specified criteria, or is it? > Are you seriously stating you called MSFT about IE not rendering something > right? That is definitely not a bug. IE has a rendering engine. I'll add an LOL to that. I think you needed to do a little bit more research before making such a blanket statement, since it seems you are associating *all* differences in IE rendering with its engine. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes, but not always, which logically makes your statement false. A difference in IE rendering can sometimes be put down to the engine in question (expected behaviour, even *if* it conflicts with the docs), versus faulty rendering (defective rendering equates to buggy behaviour, no matter what the engine is). The two are not the same. FWIW, all IE7 bugs can now be reported on their blog: <url:http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/01/31/520817.aspx> > CSS developers know what it can and can't handle. Historically, that has simply not been the case. Maybe now that *most* IE bugs have been discovered, it is a little closer to the truth, and those taking up CSS are able to easily apply the hacks relevant to their problems. However, when said bugs were still in their infancy (with plenty still yet to be discovered), it was an extremely frustrating time for a lot of developers, having to break things down to, at the very least, a minimal test case before attempting to resolve the issue. Remember, this was at a time well before the release of IE7 where we had to try and nut these problems out for ourselves (with little knowledge of the IE rendering engine, I might add). And they were *not* easy to resolve - just see the solution to the 3 pixel text jog below for proof of this. An example might help serve my point better. Some IE weirdness can definitely be grouped under the category of "it's a feature", an example being the 3 pixel text jog: <url:http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/threepxtest.html> Hardly a handy feature in my opinion, but I suppose that was Microsoft's call and the browser *was* designed to behave that way. Now, the guillotine bug on the other hand can in no way, shape, or form be interpreted as anything other than a bug, period. http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/guillotine.html If you really want to argue that this (and many many others) are simply a product of the rendering engine and that this is not buggy behaviour, then by all means, go right ahead. But before you do, please read this: <url:http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/08/22/712830.aspx> if Microsoft are prepared to admit to their bugs, maybe it's time you accepted that they exist. > If you did something it can't > handle, tough cookies. Fix your CSS...not IE. This ties in with the faulty perception that all rendering differences in IE are solely related to the engine. It's not so much what it can't handle; we know IE versions prior to 7 don't support pseudo classes for instance, so we just don't use them where IE is concerned. The problems tend to arise when its output differs to the specifications, and how it renders differently compared to other more standards compliant browsers (based on correct and valid code). What you see is not always what you expect to see, at least where IE is concerned. Most issues can be fixed, but to do so often requires the use of various *hacks* to help IE fall in line (sometimes even exploiting one IE bug to counter another) and has nothing to do with *fixing* what is not broken CSS. Mark ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:254904 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
