Ray_Net wrote: >Therefore SM is wrong when he got a good result > No. What is wrong is _trying to interpret **broken** code by **guessing**_.
>IE is more coherent, he work in all cases. > You're very forgiving when applying the word "all". The number of cases where Internet Exploder refuses to render proper code correctly are legion. Big clue: When you are getting a 20 when others are getting 100, you are doing it WRONG. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer The problem with writing non-standard code which works with a broken browser implementation is that your code now works under **only that one** rendering app --and *next week* it might not even work under **that** one: http://google.com/search?q=cache:m2XM97fMGMIJ:www.evolt.org/article/Forward_compatibility_and_web_standards/17/60115/index.html+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+mutual+mutual+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+mutual+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+it.did.not+*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header#comment-60184 http://tinyurl.com/StandardsMatter http://www.evolt.org/article/Forward_compatibility_and_web_standards/17/60115/index.html#comment-60184 _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
