If there were no browser bugs...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by e n | c k m a, Nov 3, 2003.

  1. If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
    CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
    this?

    If so, do you think that major browsers (namely Micro$oft) intentionally add
    buggy code so that at least the developers will "use" it for testing
    purposes?

    I love a good conspiracy ;)

    Nicko.
    e n | c k m a, Nov 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. [OT] If there were no browser bugs...

    Sorry, forgot to add the [OT]
    e n | c k m a, Nov 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. e n | c k m a wrote:

    > If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
    > CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
    > this?


    No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.
    Leif K-Brooks, Nov 3, 2003
    #3
  4. > No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.

    True, but hypothetically, what if they exhausted all the possibilities of
    user features?
    e n | c k m a, Nov 3, 2003
    #4
  5. e n | c k m a wrote:

    > If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
    > CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
    > this?


    No. Differences in rendering between browsers are not always as the result
    of bugs.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
    Toby A Inkster, Nov 3, 2003
    #5
  6. e n | c k m a

    Kris Guest

    In article <Tehpb.176128$>,
    "e n | c k m a" <> wrote:

    > If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
    > CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
    > this?


    I disagree. There is more to a browser than adhering to the written
    standards. This is were variety is comes in; after all, your preference
    is probably different than mine. And don't forget there are people with
    special needs, for who special browsers exist. "One browser fits all" is
    an utopia, IMO.

    Also, competition among browser makers forces them to improve the
    product, which will benefit the user. It is typical that MS has not
    tried improving their browser for a long time (security patches are not
    what i call improvements), now that they have come to dominate the
    browser market. I anticipate only growth for other browsers.

    --
    Kris
    erlands (nl)
    Kris, Nov 3, 2003
    #6
  7. e n | c k m a

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "e n | c k m a" <> wrote:

    >If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
    >CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
    >this?


    Only if that browser was the perfect choice for all users on all
    paltforms. It would need to be the perfect browser with the perfect
    user interface for everyone, regardless of whether they used its
    output on a braile device or a pda or on a TV, etc., etc.

    I find it very unlikely that the same browser would ever give the best
    performance for someone surfing the net via their TV and someone
    surfing via an aural interface.

    Even if there were no bugs there can still be massive differences in
    hwo pages are rendered.

    >If so, do you think that major browsers (namely Micro$oft) intentionally add
    >buggy code so that at least the developers will "use" it for testing
    >purposes?


    No. By definition a bug is accidental.

    Many of the non-standard 'features' of browsers were added during the
    'browser wars' to make their browsers more attractive to developers
    ("Look you can make text blink in our browser!"). And many of them
    were retained and/or copied for reasons of 'compatability'.

    Anyway, why would a browser manufacturer want their browser to only be
    used for testing purposes? Where's the return on investment in that?

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Nov 3, 2003
    #7
  8. e n | c k m a

    Chris Morris Guest

    "e n | c k m a" <> writes:
    > > No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.

    >
    > True, but hypothetically, what if they exhausted all the possibilities of
    > user features?


    Then there'd be a need for a browser that could be configured without
    going through 100 layers of menus and didn't take up Gb of HD space.

    --
    Chris
    Chris Morris, Nov 3, 2003
    #8
    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. Brent
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Brent
    Oct 26, 2005
  2. satish
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    640
    satish
    Mar 17, 2005
  3. Lance Wynn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,832
    Lance Wynn
    Feb 3, 2008
  4. Josef 'Jupp' Schugt

    Still use 'ruby-bugs' for Ruby bugs?

    Josef 'Jupp' Schugt, Nov 4, 2004, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    160
    Tom Copeland
    Nov 4, 2004
  5. David Mark
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    360
    David Mark
    Mar 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page