Am 03.04.2011 01:31, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: > Daniel Gibson wrote: >> or did you like writing a different version of >> your websites for each browser? > > I've never found that to be actually necessary. Worst problems I > ever had as a developer were actually Firefox 2... while IE6 and 7 > might have needed a few hacks, they could always do the job. Firefox > 2 often left me hanging. I hated that piece of junk. > > Anyway, with IE6 (IE5 is before my time), the worst that I ever needed > was a few isolated lines of javascript - which can be abstracted > into reusable functions - and a few little bits of CSS, easily > done with conditional comments. > > It's really very little work, more like 10% more than the 100% more > implied by "different version [..] for each browser". >
Yeah, it may not be 100% - however I've heard from other people and read on the web that supporting IE6 was really time intensive - more than 10%. But it's just what I heard/read, I haven't got much experience with web development myself. > Hell, I think I spend more time writing > > border-radius > -moz-border-radius > -webkit-border-radius > > and similar -browser- prefixes over and over again than I spent > doing IE6 adjustments. > > > That said, I am happy to see it mostly gone, even if it's > replacements still suck in their own ways. > >> surprised that you and Nick seem to like these old versions of the IE. > > The real surprise is how much of HTML5 is just mimicing IE5's functions! It's > a > good decision, just an ironic one. The functions may be great - as long as they're a standard and everybody supports them. But using functions that only work properly on a single browser sucks.
