On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM, David McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle Code for Firefox,
hack for IE.
That is, writing CSS for the most standards-compliant browser, and then
making adjustments for non-standard behaviour.
I said
Why not just user Safari for Windows rather than Opera to get an idea
how Safari works?
Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079
willdonovan wrote:
I would have to agree with the others here.
Coding for / with FF is easier because of the
Hi David,
Good question you raise.
This's how I've been working for years - design for the most
standards-compliant browser, FF.
Could it be that we code for FF because it's easier to debug (Firebug)?
Or perhaps, that most designers hear of/read articles about IE hacks
assuming that it's the
This is how I work, but mainly for pragmatic reasons:
Better JavaScript de-bugging tools in FireFox.
Better CSS support, therefore fewer problems out of the box, and better
stylesheet analysis tools.
Finally, the one good reason: anything that needs to be fixed for IE can
be done with conditional
If coding for the most standards compliant browser, then hack for IE,
then you wouldn't code for FF first. Maybe third.
It however comes with the best developer tools on the market, which
makes it easier to developer for, and that comes from someone that is
working as the product manager
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle Code for Firefox,
hack for IE.
That is, writing CSS for the most standards-compliant browser, and then
making adjustments for non-standard behaviour.
Is this the way anyone works?
Is it the best way to work?
I use basically the same
I have also read and believe that you code correctly and, yes, the browsers
that are web standard compliant should not need any hacks. However there will
most likely be the need for IE6 hacks.
--- Original Message ---
From:David McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:Mon 9/1/08 6:55 am
I would say code for standards at the end of the day, because standard is
really the minimum requirement, once that's ticked off then code/hack for
other browsers. Can't say I've read it anywhere but my web sites certainly
look, work and load a lot better since I've started following that process.
David McKinnon wrote:
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle Code for
Firefox, hack for IE.
Is this the way anyone works?
Apart from that I code for the most standard compliant browsers
(plural) at present time, and then hack for various IE versions, I
think I'll go along
I would have to agree with the others here.
Coding for / with FF is easier because of the debugging tools (i.e.
Firebug, Web Developer Toolbar, etc)
Otherwise I have atleast 4 other browsers open, all the popular IE's
(5.5, 6, 7 soon 8) and Opera.
I do find that Opera can give a good idea
I started learning hacks, and now don't use them at all.
I find that if I'm attempting to make the site cross browser, try not to
make the CSS too complicated.
William
David Storey wrote:
If coding for the most standards compliant browser, then hack for IE,
then you wouldn't code for FF
On 1 Sep 2008, at 12:27, Ben Buchanan wrote:
I use basically the same approach, but I code for Opera; checking in
Firefox and Safari. Then hack for IE at the end. On very large
builds I do the occasional check for IE as well just to make sure
things haven't gone really badly wrong in IE in
Hi David,
I wouldnt say that I code for Firefox, more that I code in immaculate
standards compliant code and that it seems to work best in Firefox,
Safari and Opera ;)
You are right though - make for standard complient browsers and then
use conditional statements for IE. Most of the time
I think that I've read about this in Andy Clarke's Transcending CSS book.
Maybe it's under the Progressive Enhancement approach.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David,
I wouldnt say that I code for Firefox, more that I code in immaculate
standards compliant code
My 2 cents:
I've been coding CSS layouts since 2003. I've probably laid out several
hundred sites at this point.
Today, I always code on FF first (yes for the tools). Yes, Opera
renders a little more accurately. Once you learn little CSS tricks to
stabilize floated items, their
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:55:07 +1000, David McKinnon wrote:
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle Code for Firefox, hack
for IE.
Interesting thread.
I learned CSS from Eric Meyer on CSS books. He gives several ideas
for avoiding browser bugs and related hacks altogether.
FWIW
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 22:09 +1000, willdonovan wrote:
I do find that Opera can give a good idea of what might be happening
with Safari if your a PC user...
Safari has been available for Windows for a little while now.
--
Nathan de Vries
I thought that was the case but does it render the same.
FF renders quite differently I find across PC, Mac and Lynx.
William
Nathan de Vries wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 22:09 +1000, willdonovan wrote:
I do find that Opera can give a good idea of what might be happening
with Safari if
From: willdonovan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought that was the case but does it render the same.
FF renders quite differently I find across PC, Mac and Lynx.
Safari does have some bugs (what browser doesn't?) but, in my experience,
the largest area of concern for certain types of layouts, is in
19 matches
Mail list logo
