If there were no browser bugs...

E

e n | c k m a

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.
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

e said:
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.
 
E

e n | c k m a

No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.

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

Toby A Inkster

e said:
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.
 
K

Kris

e n | c k m a said:
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.
 
S

Steve Pugh

e n | c k m a said:
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
 
C

Chris Morris

e n | c k m a said:
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.
 

Ask a Question

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.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top