Hi Mordechai, I totally disagree. IE (with it's problems) is the dominant browser and it's absolutely your problem (the web developer) to make sure the site you build for a client works on the most likely user-agent.
If it's your own site then you can do whatever you want. Compliant code that works across all modern browsers is certainly achievable and your methodology should take this into account. Did I (hmmm, checks date, not April 1) miss the sarcasm in this? Peter > If you try to complain about IE to a client, they'll most likely say > that that's our problem. The truth is, since they are paying > the bill, > it's their problem. It seems that the only way to get truth > through to > them is to include in the invoice: "Corrections To Make IE > Compatible." > If they say that we should therefor forget about the other browsers, > just tell them even if we did that, there would be no time savings > because we would still need to compensate for IE's bugginess. Top it > off by offering to throw in for free some bell and whistles which IE > doesn't support. > > This should do two things: > > 1) Make people aware that 100% IE support will cost them money. (But > don't compromise on one bit of functionality, just some polish.) > > 2) By creating a difference between IE and compliant browsers, people > will begin to realize that there is a difference. > > Will this mean the end of IE dominance? I doubt it. It may > however lead > to the end of IE's super-dominance, which should be good enough. ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
