> Hi, > I've sided with the following camps regarding the notion of > pixel perfect designs and standards, so my > interpretation of the job requirement left me > amused by the juxtaposition. > <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/csstalking/> > ". And once we get over pixel perfect layouts (as a recovering pixel-nazi, > I know it is really, REALLY hard) our designs should look lovely in any > newer browser." > <http://www.message.uk.com/index.php?page=31> > "Why websites look different in different browsers > > (or why pixel-perfect design is not possible on the web)" > > <http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/pixel.php>
I still fail to see how this leads to "Pixel perfect and standards is an oxymoron, complete opposed by goals and the nature of the web." Let me quote http://acid3.acidtests.org/ "To pass the test, a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly, PIXEL FOR PIXEL, like this reference rendering." (caps are mine). Toughest test to test standards compliance calling for pixel perfect match hardly makes pixel perfection and web standards an oxymoron. Though let me repeat: in most cases this requirement does not make any sense. On the other hand, it is not that hard to achieve as some may claim. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
