> CSS developers aren't considered such unless they can make > things work cross-browser. Would you agree?
Agreed, no arguments there. > Even if you > don't, that is my take. I won't hire anyone for XHTML/CSS > unless they can work cross-browser. So, again...fix your CSS. This is where we differ in opinion slightly, but ultimately our objective is the same - CSS that works consistently cross-browser. I'd prefer the term *hack* (as I previously used) as opposed to fix. Fix by definition implies something is broken, and in this case it isn't the CSS. Semantics here really, but that's my take. John wrote: > I don't know of a "bug" or > feature that a hack hasn't been discovered. And Jochem wrote: > And how do you know about them? You know about them > because somebody ran into them and reported them I agree with Jochem on this. It's most likely there are still IE6 bugs in existence we have yet to find, primarily due to the obscurity of the circumstances and code required to trigger them, but if they're not reported no-one would ever know. >With every link you provided, isn't > there a way around it? Again, fix your CSS. ;-) Most of the time, yes there is. I provided some of those links to make it clear that IE does have bugs that are unrelated to its rendering engine, and I'm sorry, but I just COULDN'T have people thinking that IE was in control of everything it did!! You fix your CSS and I'll hack mine :-) On the other hand, there are conditional comments to help in these situations and I wouldn't consider them a hack. > lol. Man...it isn't that serious Mark. I'll try to be more > careful in the future not to make statements without being > extra detailed. Ah come now John. I'm sure you're over it, and maybe my tone came across a little differently to how I would have liked so I apologise if it felt like you were getting *bashed*. We all make generalisations, myself included, and often they are easily misinterpreted. Honestly, I wasn't actually sure in your initial post whether or not you truly believed all differences in display were a direct result of the rendering engine, but that's how it came across... > > Are you seriously stating you called MSFT about IE not rendering > > something right? That is definitely not a bug. IE has a rendering engine. ....It wasn't so much the lack of detail as the inaccuracy of that statement! Not trying to be an ass here, but my interpretation of the above was that "all differences in IE rendering are due to its engine". This was reinforced by use of the word definitely and the fact you had no information about the rendering issue in question, yet were still able to confidently state it was not a bug. Was that not a fair interpretation based on what you wrote? Anyway, my intention was not to rant, but perhaps you can see why I decided to take exception with that paragraph. Oh, and my eyes are bad so I do squint, but I never type with a frown (my forehead is already wrinkly), so it's all good! And I must remember not to use the format <url:http://mylink.com> when sending links from home *smacks self* Mark -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by ISPNZ's automated virus detection system, and is believed to be clean. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:254932 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
