a:hover and the like

[Neal]

If internet explorer is not a recent browser, then what is?

Mozilla et al, Opera. These are actually being updated and developed on an
ongoing basis. IE hasn't been upgraded in ... how many years?

Most people are
using IE so we probably have to take that into consideration for
commercial
applications.

I agree, but this is a separate point, isn't it?

 

[rf]

If internet explorer is not a recent browser, then what is? Most people are
using IE so we probably have to take that into consideration for commercial
applications.

Please learn how to quote and trim correctly.

The last major upgrade to IE was release 6, IIRC circa 2000. There have been
a few "patches" since then, mainly to close the ubiquitous wide open
security holes.

All of the other browsers have advanced quite a bit since the year 2000.

The fact that most people are using IE is one of the bloody hassles website
producers have to bear. If it weren't for that piece of bloody shit we would
all be producing code to the latest standards rather than using all sorts of
hacks to make an ordinary page work with a broken browser that the bloody
sheep all over the world use by bloody default.

 

[WindAndWaves]

The fact that most people are using IE is one of the bloody hassles website
producers have to bear. If it weren't for that piece of bloody shit we would
all be producing code to the latest standards rather than using all sorts of
hacks to make an ordinary page work with a broken browser that the bloody
sheep all over the world use by bloody default.

Hi Richard,

That is an interesting point you make. I am wondering (a) why MS has not
updated it and (b) what I am missing out on. I mean to be honest, I use IE
most of the time, because I am reasonably happy with its performance. I
also really like Opera, but I do not like the adverts and being poor as I
am, I don;t see the need to buy it. Mozilla is fine too, but a bit chunky
for my liking.

Being a sheep (as you do when you are from New Zealand), I would actually be
quiet keen to find out on what I am missing out on. What do the other
browsers offer that IE does not have or is it mainly the case that IE not as
good at CSS? When I buy my next computer, I will probably switch to linux,
but the problem is that most of my clients have windows + IE.

Anyway, thank you for your interesting answer.

Cheers

- Nicolaas

 

[rf]

That is an interesting point you make. I am wondering (a) why MS has not
updated it and

Why would they? They don't make any money out of it. They make money out of
selling operating systems and development environments. Having realized that
they cannot take ownership of the web (or the "information superhighway" as
they once called it) They have spat their dummy and taken their ball home.

It could also be because of certain lawsuits that have happened. If they
suddenly say "well, IE is actually *not* part of the operating system" ...

(b) what I am missing out on.

There is a class of questions that arrive here along the lines of "it works
in browser X but it doesn't work in browser Y". Invariably either X or Y is
IE and the other one is any of the modern browsers, Netscape, Mozilla,
Opera, ..., take your pick.

The two variations within this class are:

1) It works in IE but not in Y.

This is usually because the author has either used some of the proprietory
crap that microsoft infest IE with or the author is relying on certain bugs
(like the broken box model in IE5 and IE6 quirks mode). In both cases IE has
got it wrong and browser Y is getting it right, as per the specs.

The solution is to first of all validate the HTML and CSS. This should
remove the proprietory crap. The second is to provide a valid doctype (which
is required to validate it anyway) and test with IE6 in standards mode. If
it now looks the same as it does in browser Y then all well and good.

Then go back to IE5 or quirks mode and re-test. If it is broken again then
search the newsgroups for the particular hack required to make it work.
There are hundreds of hacks to make IE work with perfectly valid HTML.

2) It works in X but not in IE.

The author has provided perfectly valid HTML and CSS but has had the
misfortune to choose something that IE simply does not support.

HTML 4.1 has been around for years. So has CSS2. Far longer than IE6. IE
does not even come close to supporting either fully.

If the problem is simply that it does not look the same [1] then live with
it. If the problem is that it does not work at all [2] then the solution is
to not use the nice new (read: years old) feature that IE barfs over.

There is a different set of hacks to cause IE to ignore certain CSS or to
make IE use certain bits but hide those bits from modern browsers. Once
again the newsgroups talk about these all the time and there are dozens of
web sites out there detailing these hacks.

Lurk here and you will find things like:

[1] My round corners don't' work in IE.

This is a spin off from a question asked right here by [KS] on the 5th of
this month: CSS border problem. Round corners on borders work nicely in
gecho browsers but not IE. Oddly enough the round borders also caused the
dashed lines to disappear in gecho browsers.

The point remains though that IE will not do round corners so if you
*really* want them then you have to use images and place them at the corners
of the box (a hack). But wait, there's more: IE has a broken box model, it
is nearly impossible to reliably place images at the corners of a box and
expect them to work in IE6 and IE5.x. The usual hack is to stick the whole
lot in a table, but that is not a good thing at all, and is also a hack.

[2] You may note there is a plethora of stuff coming in at the moment about
slide out or drop down or whatever menus. These are invaribly crafted with
heaps of javascript and so don't work in <guesses/> [3] 15% of the cases.

Now, CSS2 provides a perfectly usable method of realizing drop down/slide
out menus. No javascript, just HTML and CSS, which just about every modern
[visual] browser supports. But wait: this does not work with IE. So, what to
do? Use the nice new (read: years old) CSS and ignore 80% of your viewers or
fall back to javascript hacks? What does your client say?

A lot of questions come in asking how to change the background colour of a
table cell. Invariably the author has (correctly or not is moot) used tables
for layout and has put a navigation link in the cell. The :hover pseudo
class can be use to change the link, "but I want the entire table cell to
change".

IE only supports :hover on links, the <a> element. One either has to use a
bunch of javascript to fiddle with the td's styles onmouseover and
onmouseout (bad) or use hacks like making the <a> element block level so it
fills up the entire table cell.

Modern browsers accept td:hover {...}. Simple. Neat. Works.

[3] Oh, BTW, IIRC IE does not really understand XHTML. It gets away with it
by sort of error correcting it back to an HTML dom.

I mean to be honest, I use IE
most of the time,

That is why you don't know what you are missing.

Being a sheep (as you do when you are from New Zealand), I would actually be
quiet keen to find out on what I am missing out on.

Use a modern browser and look at some modern sites. You will see things that
the authors have put in there specifically for modern browsers and which (if
the author did it right) degrade or simply disappear with IE.

but the problem is that most of my clients have windows + IE.

That is what everybodys problem is. That is why we either produce out of
date web sites or resort to complicated javascript and/or hacks to make IE
display something that is very simple to do with a modern browser.

 

[Kris]

but the problem is that most of my clients have windows + IE.

That is what everybodys problem is. That is why we either produce out of
date web sites or resort to complicated javascript and/or hacks to make IE
display something that is very simple to do with a modern browser.[/QUOTE]

Which is why producing websites is more expensive than it ought to be.

 

[[KS]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

rf wrote:
|
| Lurk here and you will find things like:
|
| [1] My round corners don't' work in IE.
|
| This is a spin off from a question asked right here by [KS] on the 5th of
| this month: CSS border problem. Round corners on borders work nicely in
| gecho browsers but not IE. Oddly enough the round borders also caused the
| dashed lines to disappear in gecho browsers.
|
| The point remains though that IE will not do round corners so if you
| *really* want them then you have to use images and place them at the
corners
| of the box (a hack). But wait, there's more: IE has a broken box model, it
| is nearly impossible to reliably place images at the corners of a box and
| expect them to work in IE6 and IE5.x. The usual hack is to stick the whole
| lot in a table, but that is not a good thing at all, and is also a hack.
|
| ....snip snip......
|
|>but the problem is that most of my clients have windows + IE.
|
|
| That is what everybodys problem is. That is why we either produce out of
| date web sites or resort to complicated javascript and/or hacks to make IE
| display something that is very simple to do with a modern browser.
|

*[1] After noticing that dashed border lines are rendered solid lines if
- -moz-border-radius is used(for Gecko browsers), I queried
netscape.p.m.general, and a MozTeam person responsed with this:

<quote>-moz-border-radius is a vendor-specific extension to CSS, it may
follow whatever rules it wishes. In this case, it might be nice to try
drawing dashed/dotted lines, but it is not needed for mozilla XUL, so it
wouldn't be given high priority until we're ready to really implement
the CSS3 border-radius property.</quote>

Its logical when you think that the style was made for Mozilla XUL and
not for CSS standards. But it may get proper attention in future as
- -moz-opacity got, to be complaint with CSS2.1 opacity style.

And for IE or modern browser web site development, I think
www.mozilla.org web site is a good example for "proper" rendering in
modern browsers and "decent degradation" in IE/older browsers.

/KS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBaaQSxei0qAn4ScMRAqPvAJ448MVhFQ4nyG8eaZLWtxI7AQ/R2QCfUS4D
KTkFp5srm106Ii7WC0UedeI=
=7Pe9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----