Coo on 1st agreement. Yes, you are right. The CSS is not broken. Fix is used very loosely, as is hack in my vocab.
I have been leaving too many blanket statements (which is what I told someone else not to do so I'm am 100% guilty there). "I don't know...bug not found" really means IE 6 does not prevent you from having a cross-browser site. None of the bugs are out of the scope of the community. lol @ you fix your css I'll hack mine. :-) I got a good laugh out of that one. It is semantics, yes. That's all it is. I understand your need to not let people think false info is true. I do that all the time, hence the many posts I've had on this thread. I'm a semi-lurker but folks started in about ASP.NET and were making highly incorrect statements. I couldn't sit idle. :-) (same for this IE derivation but I simply didn't do as good a job explaining myself) Yes, I'm over it. I wasn't trippin' though. Just look at the many battles I was fighting and long emails I had to keep typing. After awhile it started getting irritating. I guess I brought it on myself though. It was addicting. :-) Yes, I shouldn't have left "definitely" by itself. "That is definitely not a bug just because it doesn't render properly." That's what I should have said and it would've saved me a lot of time and carpo'. :-) That was my main issue. He made it seem like JUST because it didn't render properly, he called MSFT to complain about a bug OR it is a bug JUST because it didn't render right. That's where I drew the line. :-D Your interpretation of what I wrote was 100% correct. I tell you though, these lists really do make you check yourself. You have to type to cover yourself or you get flamed or end up improperly flaming someone. This weekend, as I noticed reading over my posts, I talked like it was a verbal conversation where tone, inflection, etc are available and can help lead a convo or explain a though. I'll work on it. :-) On 10/1/06, Mark Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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:254946 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
