A
Andy Dingley
Ben said:Huh? is that a browser?
Well that explains the piss-poor quality of:
Ben said:Huh? is that a browser?
Andy said:Well that explains the piss-poor quality of:
Ed said:The original question was what *browsers* should be used to test a Web
site.
That's why it would be unethically misleading for a competent web
developer to answer that exact question, without also mentioning the
existence and use of validators.
Ben's sneering dismissal of it is either clueless, or the sort of
deliberate posturing we expect from Hatter. We don't need either.
William said:Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:
hrmm - some history here? I didn't notice anything snide about the Q.
Andy Dingley said:Well that explains the piss-poor quality of:
This people checks in IE5,IE6,IE7, Opera9, FF1.5, SeaMonkey1.0.
I sometimes use http://browsershots.org/ too.
I have no idea if I'm typical.
Mainly, because I can. I develop in Opera, and according toFleeing from the madness of the Comindico Australia - reports relating to
abuse should be sent to (e-mail address removed) jungle
Joe <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:
Interesting - any reason IE5 is still on that list?
Once said:what for that SeaMonkey - its better to use NS3 or Op7!
Seriously, I don't see any need to test in SeaMonkey. Who can explain
their idea?
John said:What browsers do people use to test their web site in?
Travis said:IE, FF. If it works in those, then you are pretty safe.
Andy said:The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
_and_ FF -- what about validation?
Arne said:Anyway, if you have Firefox there is no need to test in SeaMonkey
The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
_and_ FF -- what about validation?
You are right, working in IE is not a test of good code, but is the OP
interested in valid code or code that works in as many places as it
can?
Travis said:You are right, working in IE is not a test of good code, but is the OP
interested in valid code or code that works in as many places as it
can?
There are many tests for validation. Checking the display on a
particular browser/platform is one, checking against a DTD is another.
The trouble with W3C is that any error is as bad as any other. Missing
an alt attribute is, in the eyes of the validator, as bad as missing a
</div>.
I have a site that won't validate at strict simply because the client
insisted on having target='_blank' on links.
Geoff Berrow put finger to keyboard and typed:
At the risk of asking a possibly dim question, why use strict if
you're going to be using stuff that isn't in strict? Better to write
valid transitional than invalid strict, surely?
Beauregard said:(For new pages) I'd rather write valid Strict, then maybe toss in a
target "_blank" if the client absolutely insisted (and I could not make
hir understand) than to write Transitional. It is for updating existing
legacy pages where you don't have the time to remove all the old
presentational stuff.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.