Re: [WSG] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!
Hi Martin, 1. Coding methodology --- I would recommend coding to standards, but checking across as many browsers as possible throughout the process of building layouts. The keys are (a) use as many browsers as possible, (b) check often and (c ) deal with layout issues as they arise: A. Use as many browsers as possible If you use one main browser for building, and only check at the end, you may find part or an entire layout is broken in another browser. The more browsers you test on, the less likely you are to come across problems later in the process. Having said that, recent versions of Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Firebird are all very standards compliant, so checking against these browsers is generally a very simple process. B. Check often The key to avoiding frustration is to do a step, then test. This avoids backtracking or detailed bug hunting further down the track. This article explains the process: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/process/ C. Layout issues Layout issue can be dealt with in three main ways: - if the problem is a minor discrepancy, you may decide that it is an acceptable variation in a particular browser. - if it is a major issue, you may have to decide between workarounds and hacks. I would always go for workarounds if at all possible as they are less likely to come back and haunt you in the future. Of course, sometimes this is impossible. Dealing with layout issues is a mindset thing. Small variations in the main browsers are acceptable if your code is also more accessible for the other devices (printers, screen readers, hand helds, text readers, browsers with images off etc). John Allsopp has a great article on this: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ 2. Most compliant browser? --- Recent versions of Opera, Mozilla, Firebird, Safari are all stable and reliable. However, I wouldn't be able to tell you which browser is most compliant. Does it really matter if one browser is fractionally more compliant than another? If you move away from the theory of testing in one browser, then the question becomes unimportant. my 2 cents :) Russ Hello List, This may seen OT, but the underlying question is valid :~) I'm using Homesite+ to code, and want to configure the internal browser to Mozilla, from the default ie rendering engine, but not sure about it... 1.So, IYHOs, Is it better to code, then check, code some more, then check again, using a much more standards- compliant browser like Mozilla, or go with ie, then tweak for the rest? 2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on Opera first? A.Which browser (which version too), in order of compliance, rate first in standards. Is my list accurate: a.Mozilla builds (1.5, 1.7b, etc) b.Mozilla Firebird 0.7 c.Mozilla Firefox 0.8 d.Opera e.Netscape f.IE * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 07:00 AM, Martin E wrote: 1.So, IYHOs, Is it better to code, then check, code some more, then check again, using a much more standards- compliant browser like Mozilla, or go with ie, then tweak for the rest? Yes. Start with something compliant (because it's the future), then go back to IE. Personally, I patch-up IE's rendering with a IE-only conditional comment [1], after making sure all the good browsers are happy. 2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on Opera first? The latest version of all of them are pretty good, but keep in mind that users might still have the older versions. Personally, Firefox 0.8 is my default perfect browser to check. A.Which browser (which version too), in order of compliance, rate first in standards. Is my list accurate: a.Mozilla builds (1.5, 1.7b, etc) b.Mozilla Firebird 0.7 c.Mozilla Firefox 0.8 d.Opera e.Netscape f.IE For starters, I'd guess that Firefox 0.8 comes above Firebird 0.7, and NN6 and NN7 were built off early Mozilla builds. You're also missing Safari 1, 1.1, 1.2, and OmniWeb for the Mac, a few different things for Linux, etc etc. Secondly, I don't think it's worth establishing a list / order. Pick a browser with pretty good support (for me, it's Firefox 0.8 and Safari 1.0) to develop on, then test and adjust on everything else... last but least, I look at IE 5/5.5/6, and try to patch it's rendering engine with an additional stylesheet, linked inside an IE conditional comment. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!
Hi Martin!
This may seen OT, but the underlying question is valid :~)
:-) Good one.
As I am an Opera fan, Opera is of course the best browser on earth (although I have to admit that Firefox 0.8 has some *very neat* features). I am a mathematical maniac, so I design my sites computing the widths, paddings and margins in my head, according to the CSS-boxmodel, that is. The result I get looks good (aside from my head) in Opera and Gecko-based Mozilla-browsers. I asume that KHTML-Browsers like Konqueror and Safari get it right, too. That's what standards are for.
1. [which way around?]
The internal preview of my editor uses IE as well, but I check in Opera very often. As the design is completed, I check again in IE and fix there (...).
2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on
Opera first?
Well, Mozilla and Opera are both great at standards. But which standard do you mean, exactly? In the case of CSS, I think that Opera is a bit more standards-compliant. This *opinion* is based upon the fact that the Opera guys are amongst the people who actually make the CSS-standard. In my spare-time in the office (I know, sounds funny), I use Opera 3.62 on a Win3.11 machine (I know, sounds sad) to check what I did. Almost all of CSS-1 is covered by this browser! And to say something about CSS-3: Opera is the only browser I know, which supports { box-sizing:[...] } as the standards say (Moz does too, but only via an inofficial property).
To sum this up: Opera is the best when it comes to CSS-compliance BUT: I don't think that a list is really helpful. Mozilla, Safari and my favourite are all as standard-compliant as needed. Why use a list? I could have also said: Russ is right, although workarounds should only be used if you know what you're doing...
Regards!
--
Matthias http://www.kronn.de
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!
Although I truly respect trust Russ' methods, I have to agree with Justin on this one because IE on the mac is so notoriously uncompliant and quirky it makes the stylesheet too hard to manage. Justin's comment usage is a better way, although I was unaware of it and will need to study up on it. Thanks Justin for sharing. And thanks Russ for all your wonderful advise too. Leo On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:45 PM, Justin French wrote: My experience tells me that ignoring IE during the build, then looking at it SPECIFICALLY with it's own set of style sheets later saves me heaps of time and grief. On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 08:00 AM, russ weakley wrote: Hi Martin, 1. Coding methodology --- I would recommend coding to standards, but checking across as many browsers as possible throughout the process of building layouts. The keys are (a) use as many browsers as possible, (b) check often and (c ) deal with layout issues as they arise: A. Use as many browsers as possible If you use one main browser for building, and only check at the end, you may find part or an entire layout is broken in another browser. The more browsers you test on, the less likely you are to come across problems later in the process. Having said that, recent versions of Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Firebird are all very standards compliant, so checking against these browsers is generally a very simple process. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!
Justin, You make a lot of very good points. However, a lot depends on the layout you are doing. For many layouts, I don't think this should be necessary. I generally do not run into major IE problems, or at least problems that are not well documented (3 pixel jpg, box model, double margin, carriage returns etc), so testing IE as I go is not a problem. I think there are two reasons for this: 1. I have the luxury of designing my own layouts, so I am often keeping layout issues in mind during the design phase. The downside is that my layouts are probably not pushed as far as some. 2. Before I start building a layout in CSS, I think carefully about how the browsers will handle the various positioning methods - and which methods will run into the least problems. Examples of this include choosing to pad the content inside container to avoid box model issues and floating both columns to avoid the 3 pixel jog bug. This means you should not run into as many IE specific problems during the build. Of the two points, this is probably the most critical in avoiding IE issues. Having said that, I can see that in specific cases (if experiencing major IE issues) this would be a good alternative. And sharing a completely different methodology is also great, as it provides everyone with a wider range of alternatives. Viva la difference (or words to that effect)! :) Russ I really don't agree with this. I know you didn't specifically mention IE in your post, but testing across all browsers all the time slows down the speed at which you can build pages -- especially when dealing with IE as well. Personally, I just work directly in Firefox and Safari, *occasionally* checking it out in Opera and others. Only once I'm happy with all that do I bother with IE. Why? IE is not standards compliant, so any time you spend on it, and anything you use in your main style sheet to force IE to behave will bloat you style sheet. This is NOT the point of standards -- we're supposed to be minimising code and keeping things clean and simple, so that everything is forwards compatible. IE is not a forward-thinking browser. Whilst it may have dominance right now, other browsers, or at least Microsoft's next 'browser' will take over from it, and we'll have thousands or millions of style sheets out there intricately targeting IE 5-6 in a mess of hacks, code and comments. Instead, I write my style sheets to work on standards compliant browsers, and worry about forwards compatibility, not backwards (or even sideways). But what about IE, the market leader In some cases, the rendering bugs are OK with me, and the layout is still *passable*. In other cases, I write (a) separate style sheet(s) to target IE specifically, cascading over the standards sheets, to bring IE into line. How? MS included a great proprietary (but still standards compliant) system of comments called conditional comments. By using these, we can: a) completely hide these IE-only style sheets from non-IE browsers b) target the specific versions of IE (from 5 through to 6, including all minor builds) Sample: style type='text/css'@import(css/main.css)/style !--[if gte IE 5] link rel=stylesheet type=text/css href=css/ie.css / ![endif]-- My experience tells me that ignoring IE during the build, then looking at it SPECIFICALLY with it's own set of style sheets later saves me heaps of time and grief. Your mileage may vary though :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
