On 11/16/07, Jürgen Ragaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Nov 16, 2007 um 13:39 schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On 11/16/07, Jörn Nettingsmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> if a certain software vendor cannot be bothered to provide the most > >>> trivial bugfixes and read a f"$§%ing spec, that's really not our > >>> problem. anyone with half a brain can download and understand the > >>> relevant standards documents, and if the world's largest pile of > >>> software engineers can't be bothered, well, tough luck for their > >>> users. > >> That certain software vendor's buggy software is still rather popular > >> (>80%?) Version 6 is still popular because version 7 is even more > >> buggy. > solprovider: I disagree here - ie7 is by far less buggy that ie6 - the > list of bugs that were squashed (in coordination with the webstandards > group is impressive - well ie6 was in fact impressingly buggy).
IE7 meets standards better than IE6. I think somebody at Microsoft may have downloaded W3C's HTML and CSS specifications in 2002. I used "buggy" meaning "crashes often" rather than "not meeting standards." The most stubborn early-adopting Microsoft-addicted technical person I know finally surrendered and stopped using IE7 in August so my data is a few months old. (Greg could not get Vista to use IE6 without crashing so he installed Firefox! He claims this will be temporary.) > >> From the evidence, none of the company's programmers have half > >> a brain, and few are able to read. If our project wants to be used > >> for websites, we need to make certain our software works with that > >> buggy non-standard web browser. > true - and we're close - the fixes for ie6 probably not so hard to do. IE6 is still the leader. IE6, IE7, and Firefox2 are currently used by 90% of the public. We should not release something that does not display well in IE6. (That changes if the issue is only with the adminstration screens because we can force admins to use a modern standards-following browser.) > > Not at the cost of standards conformance and proper validation. a > > stupid bug is a stupid bug no matter the market share. people > > putting up with this kind of shit have made web designer's lives > > miserable for ten years now. > > it's not as if we'd lose those users by being picky about our code. > I agree in principle - but leaving out the xml-declaration would not > break xhtml validation. > But ok - let's leave it in and I'll provide a IE 6 conditional comment > inserted lessthenequalie6hacksonly.css. > ... can't do that at home - so I'll start with it next week (no > windows at home) > >>> if anyone wants to provide a patch with an IE-specific conditional > >>> comment, that's fine with me. clean code for the rest of us, and > >>> it's > >>> plain to see it's an extra bugfix for IE. > >> Special CSS for Microsoft Internet Explorer is easy. The browser is > >> so non-standard that equal signs are treated as colons. All browsers > >> use the last setting found if the same property is repeated. Try > >> something like: > >> display: table-cell; > >> display=block; > >> float=left; > I prefer the separation of style sheet documents I dislike code based on brower-checking because maintenance and testing becomes difficult. Simple CSS updates need to change several files; did the newly hired developer remember? > > at the risk of sounding like a broken record: this is invalid css. > > (oh yes, i validate mine :) > > i don't want to see validation warnings all over the place that > > obscure the real problems. imnsho, the *only* acceptable way to hack > > around M$' standards dyslexia are conditional comments. preferably > > by including files named > > "really_stupid_microsoft_fuckup_workaround.css". > > Jörn Nettingsmeier > Jürgen Ragaller solprovider --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
