On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:19:08 +1100, Alan Gresley <a...@css-class.com> wrote:
>You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to bother >understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document >is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending >IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac. I'm not making myself clear. He is not serving IE6- an *unstyled* page, he is serving it a DIFFERENTLY styled page, and a style that is just as complex - but different. Different graphical accents. Black-and-white photographs instead of color photographs. Differences like that. IMO, the same kind of stupid penalization of IE that it suffered when Netscape users would use the (unsupported-by-Netscape) FONT tag to set the Symbol font (making the page unreadable in IE) when the first version of IE came out. He wants to treat IE6 like the same kind of pariah that Netscape 4 has been for years, with less excuse in the case of IE6, because IE6 DOES support most of what he wants to do. >> I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all >> browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the >> philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and the >> use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance >> from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size. That's what >> I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but it >> appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its >> opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning. >I also disagree with that backwards philosophy. I attempt to suggest >of philosophy of styling a page with future support in mind. My own >test pages shows this philosophy. You are saying that it is a 'backwards philosophy' to design for a consistent visitor experience? Are we seriously - and intentionally - going back to the days of 'Best when viewed with <preferred-browser>', but based on CSS support instead of support for HTML extensions? Are you seriously suggesting that if I like a two-column print layout, I sould write my print stylesheet for it, and to hell with any browser that doesn't support it, letting it have whatever the defaults are? Or that I should have different print stylesheets for Trident vs. Gecko vs. Webkit vs. whatever? That I should use generated content in the CSS where it will make the page whizbang, even if it's not supported by all browsers, and a failure to generate the content makes the page meaningless in that browser? That's certainly what it sounds like you're saying. And if it is, then I *cannot* support that OBSCENE philosophy; I'll stick with 'graceful degradation'. Or maybe it's called 'progressive enhancement'. But what it IS, is ACCEPTING that the Web is NOT the printed page, that all browsers and computers and displays are NOT created equal, and while not designing for an inarguably badly broken (from the CSS support viewpoint) browser like Netscape 4, at least making an effort to ensure that the results in arguably usable browsers such as IE5.5 and later aren't unusable. >I have been using CSS3 for over 2 years. IE9 will have support for >rounded corner so nested divs could be seeing their last days. Here is >a page of mine (style is basically from 2008) that uses CSS3 and give >some examples. > ><http://css-class.com/test/css/> Yay for rounded corners. But note that I was talking about RADICAL differences in the original post. The difference between rounded and pointy corners is noticeable from an æsthetic point of view, but it is not RADICAL, and I don't see how it justifies serving up a completely different design for browsers that don't support them. BTW, thanks for the link to CSS3.info on that site; the selectors test there is another useful and interesting resource (and reveals just how badly Trident/IE7 is lagging in CSS support as compared with the versions of Webkit and Gecko that ship with LunaScape). ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
