Bill Lee wrote:
> Did you take a look at the code for that page? It's a wonder it even
> shows correctly in IE (which it is obviously built for).
I've noticed MSNBC has ALWAYS had HORRIBLE HTML code. I remember for awhile when
they started it didn't work under NS correctly either.
Of course, from my perspective, even under IE, the rendered page is just as ugly
as the underlying code.
> I don't think
> we can expect Moz/Netscape to cater to that much IE specific coding.
> (Though, curiously enough, it DOES display correctly in NN 4.7)
I think this is because of NS4 ignoring stuff it doesn't understand. Mozilla is
a much "smarter" browser, and tries to adhere to the rules, and the code just
doesn't allow anything to be rendered correctly. IE, on the other hand, renders
just about anything. For kicks in the past, I'd crank out garbage code, just to
see if IE would render it. What pisses me off about IE's renderer, is that if
you have a text that has sample HTML, sometimes IE will render the code, rather
than displaying it. It sees that < > and just goes into render mode. Ugh.
> Moz is
> definately going down it's own road (the correct one, maybe, but it's
> own). This site is snooping for IE as well as Netscape. It obviously
> isn't looking for Mozilla.
Netscape and Macromedia's pages used to do the same thing, not seeing Mozilla as
a valid browser.
Request to all designers who use sniffing scripts: Please, don't look for
browsers X, Y, and Z, and then lock out everyone else. Maybe just pop up an
alert dialog telling us you don't recognize our browser, and that it may not
look right. When Macromedia's site locked me out when NS6 was released, but not
recognizing Mozilla, it annoyed me to no end.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
