I guess my characterisation of this author didn't meet with universal approval. Fair enough Lea, but I don't take any of it back.
Some thoughts about what he's written: IF Microsoft introduced the most fantastic, whiz-bang, easy-to-use new feature in the next version of IE, that wouldn't be enough to get a wise developer to use it. It's only when the majority of the site users can use it (and for most web developers that includes mozilla users, mac users, opera users et.al) that they'll actually build it into their sites. Unless I have a site where 95% or more are using this new browser I wouldn't use the new feature. So Microsoft and Netscape and the others can innovate all they want and I approve of that, but until there's a positive advantage for me as a site owner or developer, it's all academic. Oh, and what do we have when the other browsers all support this new feature?? A STANDARD!! He says that "If they, Microsoft won't even make their very own webpages compliant, don't expect the next version of IE to be fully compatible with other browsers." But he ignores the point that it's in Microsoft's interests to have their pages break in other browsers. I had a MS techo tell me once when I tried to point out a broken page in Netscape, "well you should be using a proper browser instead of Netscape." That's ok for Microsoft - its in their interests - but its not ok for the vast mass of us, who need every user we can get. I'm not here to plug Microsoft's products or Firefox or Opera - they'll have to do it without me. I'm here to develop my own business and those of my clients, and they need to have sites that are workable and practical for as many of their users as possible. I have yet to find a better way to achieve this than to omit all proprietary browser features and stick to valid, compliant code. Why do large organisations not switch to standards compliance? Well some do. A splendid case in point is the Sydney Morning Herald, which site we've heard about and witnessed the change right here on this list. Through that we know that it's not a trivial matter to change a large system to or from anything. At MXDU this year, Macromedia's site manager (was it Sean Cornfield?) talked about how Macromedia is moving towards compliance. He said they have 40,000 pages to convert, and they have to do it in stages as they get to review each part of the site. It's a massive job and they just don't have the money to dedicate to switching to standards compliance if there isn't any other reason to touch that part of the site. SO he said their site is moving towards compliance but will take time to get there. Sounds like a sensible view to me. The author of that site's an idiot. No he's not ... he's a <expletive deleted> idiot. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Monday, 14 June 2004 9:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Interesting reading On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:00:45 +1000, Marc Greenstock wrote: > http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx Gentlemen, The article in question uses inflammatory language and fails to back up its claims. Might I suggest we retain our professional demeanour and not sink to the author's level? or Mind your language, please! Lea ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
