Michael Kear wrote:
In fact, that's what I explicitly stated in my post. [...]
And I agreed with you on that, and your decision to "go standard". I was
just trying to figure out if you had a sound base for making/checking
that decision, as figures derived from "statistics", IMO, is not a good
base for anything - not even when it relates directly/only to a single site.
Nowdays, it makes sense to build for a compliant browser, such as
Firefox, and then make hacks and allowances for IE's foibles.
Sure does - apart from the fact that every single browser has bugs and
flaws and shouldn't be relied upon as design-base. Using /a number of/
standard compliant browsers as design-base, and cross-checking with
standards when hitting inconsistencies, is somewhat more reliable.
Once that turns out well, we can add a bit of "help" to IE6.
What I believe the trend is indicating that in the not-too-distant
future, we'll be able to say "build for standards and leave it at
that. IE6 users are on their own - it's not worth the additional
cost to provide for them."
That day will be a good one indeed.
Indeed :-) However, given the fact that IE won't disappear all that
fast since it's the last version to "work" across window-versions, that
"not-to-distant future" may have to wait quite a bit.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
