... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE.
Let me point that this is MY opinion :
THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that
does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.
Before we
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but...
You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.)
I never saidmy site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and
On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote:
[From a PC mag article]
In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without
considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps
developed in this environment will work on just about any display,
from mobile phones
My whole point is... why bother?
Why not? As I've written some posts back - most people have no extra
expenses (or extra time / effort) delivering compliant sites, the only
time consuming part is tweaking *for* IE, so I still can't see the point.
It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even
quote
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive
amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work
across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it
has access to IE.
/ quote
Actualy webstandards ARE quite cost efective ... :D. Truly you must
XAML is a document definition language which doesnt rely on a browser. It is a
whole new technology which allows us to develop applications which are fed from
a server. There is no browser. IE doesn't even come into it.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
David Pietersen wrote:
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but...
You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov
web site. (No offence, please.)
I never said my site was not compliant. Every page of anything I
serve (apart from the legacy apps)
On 7/15/05, wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont think XAML needs to be hosted inside IE?
No it doesn't need to be. I said You will be able to, not you must :)
People need to take a step back here and stop the off topic rants. Go
do some light reading or something:
Peter Firminger wrote:
I often limit CMS Administration consoles to IE as I may well use an inline
HTML editor (an Ektron one for example) that invokes a dll on the client.
i thought ms was moving away from the dll.
dwain
--
Dwain Alford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alforddesigngroup.com
The
See http://openrico.org/home.page for applications based on it.
Bret Lester
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of
time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all
these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has
access to IE.
Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle
using
Dennis Lapcewich wrote:
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of
time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all
these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has
access to IE.
Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:54:22 -0400, Dennis Lapcewich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when practically everyone who is using it has
access to IE
I have this conversation about once a week with a Windoze-centric-IE-only
coworker. My response is always this:
Just because a lot of people have
Dennis,
Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square
rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with
round rims taking rubber tyres?
Bob McClelland
Dennis Lapcewich wrote:
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount
Isn't it funny that we were having these kinds of discussions about
Netscape in '96? Why design for anything other than Netscape? We are
finally getting standards that aren't tied to a particular browser
implementation/build and we have to ask ourselves whether we want to use
them? Give me
designer wrote:
Dennis,
Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square
rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with
round rims taking rubber tyres?
Bob McClelland
as required by industry standards is the key fragment, bob. ie isn't
At least on the open road, the square wheelers would actually _see_ the
error of their ways. You have to wonder what would happen if someone
_physically showed_ that 95% the alternatives...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:15:13 -0400, designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your analogy is invalid.
I found this CSS on a site www.kiss100.com quite interested to know how it
behaves in browsers, though it is heavy javascript
I often use a .reset class which i gather is to serve the same purpose via a
different approach.
.clearfix:after {
content: .;
display: block;
height: 0;
clear:
sam sherlock wrote:
intention is to put a minimal size block below a container and have
other containers flow below that without a great deal of space
or bumping
have you read this?
http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
hth,
dwain
--
Dwain Alford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
