RE: [WSG] Why style to IE?
Mordechai, I can't speak for everybody, but as the person responsible for designing and creating websites whose sole purpose is to bring new business into the company; my main focus is the majority that comes to our sites. The overwhelming majority (about 70%) of visitors use MSIE 5/6. If I have to limit myself to certain practices or markup to ensure that those people don't get a unstyled or lightly styled page, then darn right I'm going to. I'm not going to be the one trying to explain to our owner why somebody is on the phone having problems accessing a part of the site, or trying to explain if we get an email saying our sites are horrible. That person could be an architect wanting to specify our products to the tune of multiple millions on a project. So yes, in the pursuit of filthy lucre, I'm going to cater to the majority, and the majority is IE. In answer to the question in your subject, Why style to IE? my answer is: because that's who visits our sites (by our I mean the company I work for). Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com ** 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] Why style to IE?
As a person, you can of course say fuck you to IE, but as a web professional I find it impossible to ignore it. [ Ben de Groot - http://mathibus.com/archives/2004/10/02/phpss/#comment-3 ] On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:52:46 -0600, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mordechai, I can't speak for everybody, but as the person responsible for designing and creating websites whose sole purpose is to bring new business into the company; my main focus is the majority that comes to our sites. The overwhelming majority (about 70%) of visitors use MSIE 5/6. If I have to limit myself to certain practices or markup to ensure that those people don't get a unstyled or lightly styled page, then darn right I'm going to. I'm not going to be the one trying to explain to our owner why somebody is on the phone having problems accessing a part of the site, or trying to explain if we get an email saying our sites are horrible. That person could be an architect wanting to specify our products to the tune of multiple millions on a project. So yes, in the pursuit of filthy lucre, I'm going to cater to the majority, and the majority is IE. In answer to the question in your subject, Why style to IE? my answer is: because that's who visits our sites (by our I mean the company I work for). Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Mathias Bynens aka MaThIbUs http://mathibus.com/ ** 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] Why style to IE?
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:46:56 +0100, Mathias Bynens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a person, you can of course say fuck you to IE, but as a web professional I find it impossible to ignore it. [ Ben de Groot - http://mathibus.com/archives/2004/10/02/phpss/#comment-3 ] It's totally true. IE is a factor that weighs in at 95% of your project. Take that in account :) And as that is Ben's reply to my comment with the apt 'Fuck IE', I feel the need to explain. My visitors use primarily Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, Opera, feedreaders and IE. I hate IE, but if I don't need worry about it, fine. I won't. However, real projects should always be compliant. -- Cheers, Rob. ยป http://zooibaai.nl ** 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] Why style to IE?
If you make commercial sites you must live with the fact that it is mainly
for IE.
Loudest f. you I can tell to IE is Firebar:
http://hpstudios.homeip.net/Firebar.html
Usually I don't have to trash the code with conditional comments.
* html {}
and
* {}
css hacks are enough.
I try to make pages look better in better browsers. I use 8bit PNGs with
alpha (see pngquant), which degrade in IE to 1bit alpha instead of gray
background.
I give some extra hovers or occasional background-position: fixed for wow
effect in non-IE.
Users must see that other browsers are better. So far they only see that
some sites don't work in Firefox.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
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] Why style to IE?
Collin Davis wrote: I can't speak for everybody, but as the person responsible for designing and creating websites whose sole purpose is to bring new business into the company; my main focus is the majority that comes to our sites. As I though I explained before, and as I'll try to clarify some more below, you may be doing them a disservice. The overwhelming majority (about 70%) of visitors use MSIE 5/6. As I have tried to point out, almost all of them would still get 100% of the styling; if not through CSS alone, then with a little help from JavaScript. For that small percent of IE users who have JavaScript blocked, they'll just get what they're getting now. So while it would be no loss for them, it would be a gain for the rest. If I have to limit myself to certain practices or markup to ensure that those people don't get a unstyled or lightly styled page, then darn right I'm going to. So you limit yourself to what NN4.x and can handle? It was NN4.x and older browsers that the phrase unstyled or lightly styled was directed, unless you consider CSS dumb down to IE standards (admittedly, that usually amounts to no more than a slight margin, but a margin, none the less) to be lightly styled. I'm not going to be the one trying to explain to our owner why somebody is on the phone having problems accessing a part of the site, or trying to explain if we get an email saying our sites are horrible. That would be an interesting reversal; usually we need to explain why a Flash based sight or a sight which relies on JavaScript for functionality would do exactly that. (While I don't think I made it clear yet in this thread, as I have on a number of other occasions, I am a staunch advocate for unobtrusive JavaScript.) That person could be an architect wanting to specify our products to the tune of multiple millions on a project. And if that architect happens to be using NN4.x? So yes, in the pursuit of filthy lucre, There is nothing filthy about pursuit of profit, unless you see its pursuit as an end onto itself. While this could lead to a fascinating discussion of philosophy and ethics, I'm afraid it's also a bit off topic. I'm going to cater to the majority, and the majority is IE. And ignore standards by writing IE proprietary code? Somehow, I would guess not; otherwise you probably wouldn't be a member of this list. In answer to the question in your subject, Why style to IE? my answer is: because that's who visits [my employer's] sites. Sorry, but I don't think you read what I wrote in the body carefully enough. Admittedly, my subject line, while accurate, was intentionally a little misleading. Much of my argument, however, was that that there would be at most no diminution from what they get today, but for probably around 90% there would be an improvement. ** 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] Why style to IE?
The point I was trying to make was that my audience primarily uses IE (as I dare say, so do most commercial web audiences). As such, I design my sites to work first and foremost *for* IE. The bashing of head against the proverbial brick wall comes from trying to make my standards-compliant sites work the same in FF/Opera/NN/Safari as they do in IE. All of my sites (save for I think 2), are done in XHTML 1.0 Strict, and I make sure each page validates, as well as the CSS. I first make sure the sites look and perform the way I want in both MSIE 5 and 6. After that is successful, I then start testing in the other browsers. For other sites (personal, concept, etc.), I worry about IE last, because most of my friends and colleagues use more standards compliant browsers. While I do know ECMA-262 (Javascript), I hate using it. I can develop much quicker just using a pure markup+css approach, and have no need for scripting. I hope that makes my original post clearer. In no way did I think Mordechai was suggesting an ignoring an IE, but was asking why style to IE specifically, and I was just giving the rationale for doing so. Cheers :) Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Berry Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:15 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Why style to IE? I don't believe Mordechai was suggesting anyone ignore IE -- rather that, instead of bashing our heads against the proverbial brick wall trying to make our standards-compliant sites work in IE, it may be a workable option to use an alternative to said head bashing and css hacks. His suggestion was to use Javascript. ** 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] Why style to IE?
Right on, Vicki. Additionally, conditional comments are not blocked in IE --as is JavaScript-- if the user has her Security setting at High. David On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 01:15:12 +0800, Vicki Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe Mordechai was suggesting anyone ignore IE -- rather that, instead of bashing our heads against the proverbial brick wall trying to make our standards-compliant sites work in IE, it may be a workable option to use an alternative to said head bashing and css hacks. His suggestion was to use Javascript. My own method of preference in these circumstances is the use of conditional comments for IE. I don't know Javascript, and with conditional comments a) the page still validates and works as intended in UAs that support standards, b) IE alone reads what's meant for IE alone and furthermore I can target specific versions of IE, c) I can still reference an external css file, and d) I can get IE to do what it's told by writing fast, clean css in far less time than it takes me to work out hacks. :-) It's not going to suit everyone and I'd be interested to hear people's ideas for and against these alternatives. Vicki. :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ** 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] Why style to IE?
Mordechai Pellar wrote: So you limit yourself to what NN4.x and can handle? It was NN4.x and older browsers that the phrase unstyled or lightly styled was directed, unless you consider CSS dumb down to IE standards (admittedly, that usually amounts to no more than a slight margin, but a margin, none the less) to be lightly styled. I misinterpreted your meaning on that statement. What I was leaning towards was, for example, using something like :hover on attributes other than a tags, or using Javascript to simulate a :hover effect. Since IE doesn't recognize :hover apart from anchor tags, I only use :hover on anchor tags. And if that architect happens to be using NN4.x? I go through our statistics every Monday, and also print out a copy to hand to our owner. In the two years I've worked here, I believe I've seen a version of NN other than 7 once. However, if NN4.x was the predominant browser being used to access our sites, I would definitely design and code in such a way that it would work exactly like I wanted in NN4.x. There is nothing filthy about pursuit of profit, unless you see its pursuit as an end onto itself. While this could lead to a fascinating discussion of philosophy and ethics, I'm afraid it's also a bit off topic. My poor attempt at humor, and flashbacks to a fundamental upbringing, and yes, completely off topic, however, making the point that for commercial sites, it's 100% about making money, not about perfect, compliant code. :) And ignore standards by writing IE proprietary code? Somehow, I would guess not; otherwise you probably wouldn't be a member of this list. I think I was misunderstood here. I don't use any IE proprietary code at all, nor do I use hacks. Rather, my point was that I style first and foremost for IE, not for FF/Opera/NN/Safari/etc. Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com ** 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] Why style to IE?
Mordechai Peller wrote: I know there's a certain degree of revulsion to using JavaScript, but that's because it wasn't used properly. It's a very powerful language, and when combined with the DOM, and used responsibly, it can do many wonderful things. -- I agree with you especially for javascript. People cannot believe how many things we can do with javascript and DOM and still being standard. To my opinion not to have problems with the different browsers is to use what is common to all of them and to insure to give position or size to the object(with some exception like list) since that I have no problem of compatibility. Besides that I discover recently that w3c like to give us headhache witch collapsing margin and for that Microsoft is right margin is margin. Berry ** 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] Why style to IE?
Good day all, I have to concur with Collin about designing for IE first and foremost. I run a design firm in Dallas, and the dominate browser is the US is certainly IE therefore it would be less then prudent or rational to design for FF/Opera/NN/Safari etc. I also understand and take advantage of JavaScript in conjunction with DOM where applicable. This is a powerful language and when used effectively can provide a host of functionality inline with standards-based technologies. The bottomline is that you have to pick your battles wisely, or risk becoming a hack :) Respectfully yours, Mario S. Cisneros, President WebNet Design Studios, LLC The point I was trying to make was that my audience primarily uses IE (as I dare say, so do most commercial web audiences). As such, I design my sites to work first and foremost *for* IE. The bashing of head against the proverbial brick wall comes from trying to make my standards-compliant sites work the same in FF/Opera/NN/Safari as they do in IE. All of my sites (save for I think 2), are done in XHTML 1.0 Strict, and I make sure each page validates, as well as the CSS. I first make sure the sites look and perform the way I want in both MSIE 5 and 6. After that is successful, I then start testing in the other browsers. For other sites (personal, concept, etc.), I worry about IE last, because most of my friends and colleagues use more standards compliant browsers. While I do know ECMA-262 (Javascript), I hate using it. I can develop much quicker just using a pure markup+css approach, and have no need for scripting. I hope that makes my original post clearer. In no way did I think Mordechai was suggesting an ignoring an IE, but was asking why style to IE specifically, and I was just giving the rationale for doing so. Cheers :) Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Berry Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:15 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Why style to IE? I don't believe Mordechai was suggesting anyone ignore IE -- rather that, instead of bashing our heads against the proverbial brick wall trying to make our standards-compliant sites work in IE, it may be a workable option to use an alternative to said head bashing and css hacks. His suggestion was to use Javascript. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Why style to IE?
Collin Davis wrote: The bashing of head against the proverbial brick wall comes from trying to make my standards-compliant sites work the same in FF/Opera/NN/Safari as they do in IE. I first make sure the sites look and perform the way I want in both MSIE 5 and 6. After that is successful, I then start testing in the other browsers. And there's your mistake. As has been discussed many times on this list and elsewhere, it's much easier and faster to first code to standards and then correct for IE. While I do know ECMA-262 (Javascript), I hate using it. I don't know how well you do or do not know JavaScript, but I suspect that either you don't know JavaScript very well (a common occurrence), or don't like to program (do such people really exist? ;-) ). I have found that the better I come to understand JavaScript, the more I like it; in many ways it is an interesting, powerful little, often misunderstood, language.[1] Lest I be misunderstood (a seemingly common occurrence of late), I was only guessing to what I felt was a likely source for your comment. You are, of course, equally entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine, and no insult is intended. [1] JavaScript:The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language by Douglas Crockford http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html I can develop much quicker just using a pure markup+css approach, and have no need for scripting. There's no need to do your own scripting (though that happens to be my preference). All you need to do is plug in Dean Edwards's IE7 http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/. While I haven't used it myself, it's gotten good reviews. I hope that makes my original post clearer. I think you've made your point of view clearer. In no way did I think Mordechai was suggesting an ignoring an IE, but was asking why style to IE specifically, and I was just giving the rationale for doing so. Actually, what I was questioning is why we should limit ourselves to the CSS which IE understands natively when JavaScript can be such a good translator. ** 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] Why style to IE?
Collin Davis wrote: Since IE doesn't recognize :hover apart from anchor tags, I only use :hover on anchor tags. As I have done as well. Though now I'm wondering why not just use an onmouseover, hidden by either conditional comments or conditional compilation, as well? However, if NN4.x was the predominant browser being used to access our sites, I would definitely design and code in such a way that it would work exactly like I wanted in NN4.x. An unusual case which should be dealt with in an unusual manner. My poor attempt at humor, and flashbacks to a fundamental upbringing, and yes, completely off topic While I find debating different religions and philosophies enjoyable and interesting, besides being very off topic, It's often not worth the risk of causing offense. however, making the point that for commercial sites, it's 100% about making money, not about perfect, compliant code. :) Many is the time that people forfeit greater returns tomorrow for a seemingly quicker return today. In the end they often end up loosing money. I don't use any IE proprietary code at all, I didn't suggest that you did, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a member of this list. ** 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] Why style to IE?
I think it is important *not to* buildtest in IE first. You have to avoid building your code on top of some IE bug/quirk. It is much less work to force IE to behave well, than making all other browsers misbehave like IE. For that matter I build and test pages for Firefox and Opera7 first (having IE (in)capatibilities in mind), and after I have desired layout I start fighting to get it working in IE. This guarantees that code for all browsers is standards-compiliant and invalid junk is only served to IEnvalid junk. -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] Why style to IE?
Mordechai Peller wrote: And there's your mistake. As has been discussed many times on this list and elsewhere, it's much easier and faster to first code to standards and then correct for IE. I may be a duck out of water here, but I don't find it to be so. I've done it both ways, and marking up for IE first, I can get it together and on the web faster than marking up for other browsers, and IE. After the site is live, I can then go back and tweak settings to make sure it works with other browsers, and gradually implement the changes in CSS files or markup. I don't know how well you do or do not know JavaScript, but I suspect that either you don't know JavaScript very well (a common occurrence), or don't like to program (do such people really exist? ;-) ). I have found that the better I come to understand JavaScript, the more I like it; in many ways it is an interesting, powerful little, often misunderstood, language.[1] While by no means an expert on JavaScript, I've been using it for about nine years now. You are correct however, in that I don't like to program. At all. I come from a design background, not a computer science background. I outsource 95% of my PHP/SQL work, and concentrate almost exclusively on design for the web and print, but still choose to do all markup, because I do believe that standards compliant markup is something that is very, very important, and don't trust anybody else to do it. :) Actually, what I was questioning is why we should limit ourselves to the CSS which IE understands natively when JavaScript can be such a good translator. The reason I limit myself, is that I can move all my design concepts to the web without using JavaScript as a translator, rather by simply using standards compliant markup and CSS formatting. However, I do abide by the less is more line of thought when it comes to design, and try to keep everything as simple and understandable as possible. Again, this is because I cater to a specific audience. Say Kioken Design were still around today and they were staunch supporters of standards compliance. In that case, flashiness would supersede content and usability, and they would have good reason to use every tool and trick available to make sure their design ideas were carried over. Thanks for the link to IE7 - really nice! Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com While I find debating different religions and philosophies enjoyable and interesting, besides being very off topic, It's often not worth the risk of causing offense. If you use IRC at all, I'd like to invite you to #computerhelp on Undernet, where I'm a channel administrator. We have a great group of people, and are always looking for intelligent newcomers! ** 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] Why style to IE?
You have to avoid building your code on top of some IE bug/quirk. The only bug/quirk with IE that I've come across that needed my attention was the big one: box model. I prefer to use the box in a box sort of workaround, rather than tantek, SBMH, modified SBMH or alternate BMHs, simply because I don't see the box in a box method as being a hack, per se. Other than that, the small things like the lack of :hover tag support, etc. I can live without those particular effects. This guarantees that code for all browsers is standards-compiliant and invalid junk is only served to IEnvalid junk. Why serve any junk at all? It is entirely possible to create fully standards compliant, visually striking pages without using hacks, extra scripting or any other sort of method. Csszengarden is the only example you need of that. Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products p 903.454.0904 f 903.454.3642 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] web www.strombergarchitectural.com ** 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] Why style to IE?
The only bug/quirk with IE that I've come across that needed my attention was the big one: box model. I prefer to use the box in a box sort of workaround This needs excessive divs and without IE support for '' selector requires them additionally messed with lots of id/classes. Why serve any junk at all? To make good [X]HTML and good CSS work in bad browser. It is entirely possible to create fully standards compliant visually striking pages without using hacks Not really. It requires lots of effort or extra code to avoid buggy areas completly. Csszengarden is the only example you need of that. HTML for CSSZengarden is an absolute mess (read comment in code). Stylesheets are bit simpler because of tons of extra markup in code, but this duo is not kind you'd like to maintain on everyday basis. and even not all stylesheets are 'pure', take this one: http://www.csszengarden.com/144/144.css -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] Why style to IE?
re: and even not all stylesheets are 'pure', take this one: Name: Lim Yuan Qing Age: 14 DOB: 25th January 1990 Location: Singapore Yuan Qing is an alumnus of Temasek Secondary and Ngee Ann Primary. Come 2005 he will attend school at Temasek Junior College in its Integrated Programme (IP). On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:07:46 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only bug/quirk with IE that I've come across that needed my attention was the big one: box model. I prefer to use the box in a box sort of workaround This needs excessive divs and without IE support for '' selector requires them additionally messed with lots of id/classes. Why serve any junk at all? To make good [X]HTML and good CSS work in bad browser. It is entirely possible to create fully standards compliant visually striking pages without using hacks Not really. It requires lots of effort or extra code to avoid buggy areas completly. Csszengarden is the only example you need of that. HTML for CSSZengarden is an absolute mess (read comment in code). Stylesheets are bit simpler because of tons of extra markup in code, but this duo is not kind you'd like to maintain on everyday basis. and even not all stylesheets are 'pure', take this one: http://www.csszengarden.com/144/144.css -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ** 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] Why style to IE?
Title: RE: [WSG] Why style to IE? Thanks for the Dean Edwards link! ByteDreams -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 2:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Why style to IE? Collin Davis wrote: The bashing of head against the proverbial brick wall comes from trying to make my standards-compliant sites work the same in FF/Opera/NN/Safari as they do in IE. I first make sure the sites look and perform the way I want in both MSIE 5 and 6. After that is successful, I then start testing in the other browsers. And there's your mistake. As has been discussed many times on this list and elsewhere, it's much easier and faster to first code to standards and then correct for IE. While I do know ECMA-262 (_javascript_), I hate using it. I don't know how well you do or do not know _javascript_, but I suspect that either you don't know _javascript_ very well (a common occurrence), or don't like to program (do such people really exist? ;-) ). I have found that the better I come to understand _javascript_, the more I like it; in many ways it is an interesting, powerful little, often misunderstood, language.[1] Lest I be misunderstood (a seemingly common occurrence of late), I was only guessing to what I felt was a likely source for your comment. You are, of course, equally entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine, and no insult is intended. [1] _javascript_:The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language by Douglas Crockford http://www.crockford.com/_javascript_/_javascript_.html I can develop much quicker just using a pure markup+css approach, and have no need for scripting. There's no need to do your own scripting (though that happens to be my preference). All you need to do is plug in Dean Edwards's IE7 http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/. While I haven't used it myself, it's gotten good reviews. I hope that makes my original post clearer. I think you've made your point of view clearer. In no way did I think Mordechai was suggesting an ignoring an IE, but was asking why style to IE specifically, and I was just giving the rationale for doing so. Actually, what I was questioning is why we should limit ourselves to the CSS which IE understands natively when _javascript_ can be such a good translator. ** 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] Why style to IE?
Title: RE: [WSG] Why style to IE? One other thing... Have you not used this method yourself for any particular reason, other than the opportunity just didn't present itself? Just curious. ByteDreams -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 2:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Why style to IE? Collin Davis wrote: The bashing of head against the proverbial brick wall comes from trying to make my standards-compliant sites work the same in FF/Opera/NN/Safari as they do in IE. I first make sure the sites look and perform the way I want in both MSIE 5 and 6. After that is successful, I then start testing in the other browsers. And there's your mistake. As has been discussed many times on this list and elsewhere, it's much easier and faster to first code to standards and then correct for IE. While I do know ECMA-262 (_javascript_), I hate using it. I don't know how well you do or do not know _javascript_, but I suspect that either you don't know _javascript_ very well (a common occurrence), or don't like to program (do such people really exist? ;-) ). I have found that the better I come to understand _javascript_, the more I like it; in many ways it is an interesting, powerful little, often misunderstood, language.[1] Lest I be misunderstood (a seemingly common occurrence of late), I was only guessing to what I felt was a likely source for your comment. You are, of course, equally entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine, and no insult is intended. [1] _javascript_:The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language by Douglas Crockford http://www.crockford.com/_javascript_/_javascript_.html I can develop much quicker just using a pure markup+css approach, and have no need for scripting. There's no need to do your own scripting (though that happens to be my preference). All you need to do is plug in Dean Edwards's IE7 http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/. While I haven't used it myself, it's gotten good reviews. I hope that makes my original post clearer. I think you've made your point of view clearer. In no way did I think Mordechai was suggesting an ignoring an IE, but was asking why style to IE specifically, and I was just giving the rationale for doing so. Actually, what I was questioning is why we should limit ourselves to the CSS which IE understands natively when _javascript_ can be such a good translator. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
