IE 9 Beta (OT)

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Neredbojias, Sep 21, 2010.

  1. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! The redesigned top
    is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
    (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
    though.) And hallelujah! - it does opacity! They've opted for the
    "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
    as a negative.

    There are a few issues. The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
    do in other browsers. Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
    think they fixed it.) Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
    start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
    then be cached) after the first one. The video loads fine (fast) once
    it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
    Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
    the probs I like it better than ie 8.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neredbojias

    rf Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFA3E9594F3Bneredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...

    >I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!


    Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript "libraries"
    :)
     
    rf, Sep 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neredbojias

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Sep 21, 8:09 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!  The redesigned top
    > is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
    > (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
    > though.)  And hallelujah! - it does opacity!  They've opted for the
    > "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
    > as a negative.
    >
    > There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    > elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    > statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
    > do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
    > think they fixed it.)  Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
    > start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
    > then be cached) after the first one.  The video loads fine (fast) once
    > it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
    > Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
    > the probs I like it better than ie 8.


    According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
    mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
    and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
    see it.

    If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
    on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
    xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
    xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines xhtml
    is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the server as
    html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self closing br, img,
    etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in xhtml 1.1 and works,
    we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is capable of displaying an
    xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Sep 21, 2010
    #3
  4. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 21 Sep 2010, "rf" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFA3E9594F3Bneredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >
    >>I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!

    >
    > Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript
    > "libraries"
    >:)


    Yep, I've noticed some irregularities pertaining to the j/s. But it's
    a beta, don't forget, and much will be fixed before the final release.
    (-Just how much is the question.) Funny thing is I tried it on a
    rather extensive j/s image-styling loop that made ie8 (-but no other
    browser) hiccup and it handled that okay. We'll see.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 22, 2010
    #4
  5. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 21 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Sep 21, 8:09 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!  The redesigned
    >> top is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I
    >> prefer. (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a
    >> pixel or two, though.)  And hallelujah! - it does opacity!  They've
    >> opted for the "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on
    >> but don't count as a negative.
    >>
    >> There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    >> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    >> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
    >> they do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back
    >> but I think they fixed it.)  Also, there seems to be an odd delay
    >> _on the start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which
    >> should by then be cached) after the first one.  The video loads fine
    >> (fast) once it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for
    >> some reason. Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet
    >> and except for the probs I like it better than ie 8.

    >
    > According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
    > mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
    > and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
    > see it.
    >
    > If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
    > on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
    > xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
    > xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines
    > xhtml is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the
    > server as html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self
    > closing br, img, etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in
    > xhtml 1.1 and works, we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is
    > capable of displaying an xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.


    Here's from view source "original":

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

    <head>

    <title>Fatty</title>

    <style type="text/css">
    body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
    a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
    a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
    a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
    p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
    #000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
    #ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
    100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>

    </head>


    Here's from view source DOM (page):

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
    <html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

    <head>

    <title>FattyFatty</title>

    <style type="text/css">
     body {
      color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 68);
     }
     a:active {
      color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
     a:visited {
      color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
     a:link {
      color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
     p {
      color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
      font-size: 125%;
      font-weight: bold;
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
     p.two {
      text-align: center;
      color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
      font-size: 100%;
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
     h3 {
      text-align: center;
      color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
      font-size: 100%;
      background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
     }
    </style>


    </head>


    I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.


    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 22, 2010
    #5
  6. Neredbojias

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Sep 22, 2:22 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 21 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 21, 8:09 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > >> I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!  The redesigned
    > >> top is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I
    > >> prefer. (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a
    > >> pixel or two, though.)  And hallelujah! - it does opacity!  They've
    > >> opted for the "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on
    > >> but don't count as a negative.

    >
    > >> There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    > >> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    > >> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
    > >> they do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back
    > >> but I think they fixed it.)  Also, there seems to be an odd delay
    > >> _on the start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which
    > >> should by then be cached) after the first one.  The video loads fine
    > >> (fast) once it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for
    > >> some reason. Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet
    > >> and except for the probs I like it better than ie 8.

    >
    > > According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
    > > mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
    > > and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
    > > see it.

    >
    > > If you would kindly view my pagehttp://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
    > > on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
    > > xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
    > > xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines
    > > xhtml is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the
    > > server as html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self
    > > closing br, img, etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in
    > > xhtml 1.1 and works, we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is
    > > capable of displaying an xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.

    >
    > Here's from view source "original":
    >
    > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
    > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
    >
    > <head>
    >
    > <title>Fatty</title>
    >
    > <style type="text/css">
    > body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
    > a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
    > a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
    > a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
    > p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
    > #000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
    > #ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
    > 100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>
    >
    > </head>
    >
    > Here's from view source DOM (page):
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
    > <html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
    >
    > <head>
    >
    > <title>FattyFatty</title>
    >
    > <style type="text/css">
    >  body {
    >   color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 68);
    >  }
    >  a:active {
    >   color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    >  a:visited {
    >   color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    >  a:link {
    >   color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    >  p {
    >   color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
    >   font-size: 125%;
    >   font-weight: bold;
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    >  p.two {
    >   text-align: center;
    >   color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
    >   font-size: 100%;
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    >  h3 {
    >   text-align: center;
    >   color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
    >   font-size: 100%;
    >   background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
    >  }
    > </style>
    >
    > </head>
    >
    > I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.


    Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report concerning
    the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not downloading beta
    browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in detail. I usually use
    Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7 installed which I could
    upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although many hate and a few may
    love IE, you nearly have to have it to check your web pages. I will
    post again if I find anything new that is interesting.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Sep 22, 2010
    #6
  7. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 22 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Sep 22, 2:22 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.

    >
    > Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report
    > concerning the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not
    > downloading beta browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in
    > detail. I usually use Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7
    > installed which I could upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although
    > many hate and a few may love IE, you nearly have to have it to check
    > your web pages. I will post again if I find anything new that is
    > interesting.


    I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
    and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so... I
    miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
    frequently. Will probably go back in a week or so.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 24, 2010
    #7
  8. Neredbojias

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Sep 23, 7:25 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
    > and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so...  I
    > miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
    > frequently.  Will probably go back in a week or so.


    Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
    read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
    computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
    XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
    XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
    That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
    over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food :). Of course this
    is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
    The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
    billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Sep 25, 2010
    #8
  9. Neredbojias

    idle Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

    > On Sep 23, 7:25 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
    >> and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so...  I
    >> miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
    >> frequently.  Will probably go back in a week or so.

    >
    > Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
    > read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
    > computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
    > XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
    > XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
    > That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
    > over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food :). Of course this
    > is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
    > The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
    > billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.


    IE9 uses Direct2D to hardware-accelerate HTML5-based scrolling and 3D graphics, handing such processing to the machine's GPU.
    Direct2D was introduced with Windows 7, and it was later rolled into Windows Vista SP2 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

    For Windows XP, the writing has long been on the wall. Microsoft said back in November, at its PDC conference in Los Angeles,
    that IE9 would make use of Direct2D.

    --
    Double parked on the corner of Null and Void.
     
    idle, Sep 25, 2010
    #9
  10. Neredbojias

    GTalbot Guest

    On 21 sep, 09:09, Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    > elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    > statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
    > do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
    > think they fixed it.)


    Neredbojias,

    "
    (...) * The static position for 'left' is the distance from the left
    edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a hypothetical
    box that would have been the first box of the element if its
    'position' property had been 'static' and 'float' had been 'none'.
    (...)
    But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
    hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
    probable position.
    "
    CSS 2.1, section 10.3.7 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width

    "
    (...) the term "static position" (of an element) refers, roughly, to
    the position an element would have had in the normal flow. More
    precisely, the static position for 'top' is the distance from the top
    edge of the containing block to the top margin edge of a hypothetical
    box that would have been the first box of the element if its specified
    'position' value had been 'static' and its specified 'float' had been
    'none' and 'clear' had been 'none'.
    (...)
    But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
    hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
    probable position.
    "
    CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height

    regards, Gérard
    --
    Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/
    Internet Explorer 8 bugs: 64 bugs so far
    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/
     
    GTalbot, Sep 26, 2010
    #10
  11. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 25 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Sep 23, 7:25 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog
    >> somewhere and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting,
    >> so...  I miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I
    >> used it frequently.  Will probably go back in a week or so.

    >
    > Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
    > read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
    > computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
    > XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
    > XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
    > That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
    > over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food :). Of course this
    > is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
    > The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
    > billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.


    Yeah, I also read it wouldn't work in XP, and I don't think the final
    version will, either. So get rid of the parrot and keep up with the
    Gates's. Some parrots, btw, go for $1000 or more...

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 26, 2010
    #11
  12. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 25 Sep 2010, GTalbot <> wrote:

    >
    > On 21 sep, 09:09, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >
    >> There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    >> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    >> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
    >> they do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back
    >> but I think they fixed it.)

    >
    > Neredbojias,
    >
    > "
    > (...) * The static position for 'left' is the distance from the left
    > edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a
    > hypothetical box that would have been the first box of the element if
    > its 'position' property had been 'static' and 'float' had been
    > 'none'. (...)
    > But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
    > hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
    > probable position.
    > "
    > CSS 2.1, section 10.3.7 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width
    >
    > "
    > (...) the term "static position" (of an element) refers, roughly, to
    > the position an element would have had in the normal flow. More
    > precisely, the static position for 'top' is the distance from the top
    > edge of the containing block to the top margin edge of a hypothetical
    > box that would have been the first box of the element if its
    > specified 'position' value had been 'static' and its specified
    > 'float' had been 'none' and 'clear' had been 'none'.
    > (...)
    > But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
    > hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
    > probable position.
    > "
    > CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height


    I wonder what idiot put that clause in? Anyway, they guessed wrong,
    and if they don't guess right by the time it's officially released, my
    status quo regarding usage of Internet Explorer will not change in the
    least.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 26, 2010
    #12
  13. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 26 Sep 2010, Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2010-09-26, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> On 25 Sep 2010, GTalbot <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> On 21 sep, 09:09, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
    >>>> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
    >>>> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
    >>>> they do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile
    >>>> back but I think they fixed it.)

    > [...]
    >>> But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
    >>> hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
    >>> probable position.
    >>> "
    >>> CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced
    >>> elements
    >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height

    >>
    >> I wonder what idiot put that clause in? Anyway, they guessed wrong,
    >> and if they don't guess right by the time it's officially released,
    >> my status quo regarding usage of Internet Explorer will not change
    >> in the least.

    >
    > The clause about making a guess is not idiotic, but what was
    > ill-advised was all that stuff about a hypothetical box-- the
    > position should have just defaulted to 0,0 if not set.


    If I have this:

    The rain in Spain <span>gives Jane a pain.</span>

    and the span is position:absolute without any left or height etc.
    positioners, the "gives Jane a pain" part should absolutely,
    definitely, and unequivocally go where it would go if it were static.
    Why? Because anything else if non-utilitarian, i.e.: useless. There
    _is_ a use for absolutely-positioned "followers" and how else would you
    do that? And what good is a 0,0 default? If you want 0.0, set it with
    the parameters.

    > It has turned out to be more important to most people that browsers
    > do the same thing than that they all do different possibly more
    > useful things. So although 0,0 is less useful than a guess, it is
    > easier to specify.


    I agree that consistency is vital and I could probably live with most
    w3c crap if it worked the same in all browsers even if it were less
    than brilliant. But it doesn't. And what's their attitude? "Take a
    guess..."

    > The W3C state somewhere that the idea is something like that life
    > should be easiest for users, then authors, then implementors. Fine in
    > principle but if you make it too hard for the implementors, you get
    > inconsistent results across browsers, which hurts authors, and
    > ultimately users.
    >
    > Telling them it's OK they can just guess at the really difficult
    > stuff doesn't really help the problem!


    No, of course not. But they are good at one thing. Platitudes.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 27, 2010
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Oliver

    install Beta 2 after Beta 1?

    Mark Oliver, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    397
    Scott Allen
    Jan 25, 2005
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,172
    Bruce Barker
    May 3, 2005
  3. Eugene Toporov
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    752
    Eugene Toporov
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. David Dorward
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    573
    David Dorward
    Jul 12, 2005
  5. SMichal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    631
    SMichal
    Nov 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page