page to show that IE sux

[Rafal 'Raf256' Maj]

Hi,
is there some good page that shos how IE sux - i.e. examples of

1) :hover
2) .png with transprency
3) bugs in CSS box model

etc... ?

 

[The Doormouse]

is there some good page that shos how IE sux

No, monkey ... =)

IE is actually a pretty good browser - I use it, and Firefox.

What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.

For example, is anyone really mourning the loss of NN4?

The key to the browser wars is keeping your pages standards-compliant
with a liquid design. If browser quirkiness kills your page, maybe the
page needs soem work ...

The Doormouse

 

[Rafal 'Raf256' Maj]

(e-mail address removed)

What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.

Not exacly, as I write before - IE is not compilant with CSS, and with
other official, wide-used standards as PNG.

 

[SpaceGirl]

No, monkey ... =)

IE is actually a pretty good browser - I use it, and Firefox.

What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.

For example, is anyone really mourning the loss of NN4?

The key to the browser wars is keeping your pages standards-compliant
with a liquid design. If browser quirkiness kills your page, maybe the
page needs soem work ...

The Doormouse

IE also doesn't render XHTML. Or rather, it renders XHTML as if it were
HTML. It also totally trashes correctly written XML, so you have to write
fixes specifically to get it to work in IE. All other modern browsers quite
happily handle XHTML and XML without any messing around... seems to me that
Netscape (at least, Mozilla) and IE have swapped places. Mozilla is a *far*
superior browser as far as standards are concerned.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Sadly, some still use NN4: 1.1% at my site.

IE also doesn't render XHTML. Or rather, it renders XHTML as if it were

HTML.

Which for me is good enough.

seems to me that Netscape (at least, Mozilla) and IE have swapped places. Mozilla is a *far*
superior browser as far as standards are concerned.

Further fundamental IE improvements ended with the appearance of IE6, and
since the replacement for IE6 is not expected till sometime in 2006, the
Opera, Gecko, and KHTML browsers will continue to extend their lead for
several more years. Also, Microsoft's stated position is that it will only
support standards better if their customers demand it, and most customers
don't notice IE's deficiencies ... unless they have switched, in case they
are no longer Microsoft's customers.

There are some things that IE does do better: e.g., Mozilla chokes on
page-break-before:always; , but IE6 handles it well.

 

[The Doormouse]

Not exacly, as I write before - IE is not compilant with CSS, and with
other official, wide-used standards as PNG.

IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not (nor
will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.

I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.

The Doormouse

 

[The Doormouse]

IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not
(nor will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.

I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.

The CSS quirks that IE has do not affect my implementations to date. This
does not mean that the differences are not very serious. It does mean
that the 800-pound browser gorilla has my complete attention should I be
forced to choose.

I can afford to, and will, ignore PNG.

(C'mon Firefox! Make me a believer!!)

The Doormouse

 

[Nik Coughin]

IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not
(nor will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.

I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.

The Doormouse

I think you'd be surprised at how widely-used PNG actually is. Also, PNG
would be *much* more widely-used if properly supported by IE. PNG allows
transparency (including alpha-transparency, not currently supported by IE at
all except through the use of a proprietary filter) with true color images
and also supports the saving of true color images in a lossless format --
one which allows for considerably smaller images than that of a JPEG saved
in lossless format. 256 color PNG files are more often than not smaller
than the same file saved as a GIF.

 

[Whitecrest]

(C'mon Firefox! Make me a believer!!)

<poof!> You are a beaver!

Oh believer.... never mind....

 

[Whitecrest]

I think you'd be surprised at how widely-used PNG actually is. Also, PNG
would be *much* more widely-used if properly supported by IE.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda doesn't change the facts though.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

is there some good page that shos how IE sux - i.e. examples of

1) :hover
2) .png with transprency
3) bugs in CSS box model

Seems no-one's answered your original question yet...
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html

 

[The Doormouse]

<poof!> You are a beaver!

=D

The Doormouse

 

[C A Upsdell]

The CSS quirks that IE has do not affect my implementations to date. This
does not mean that the differences are not very serious. It does mean
that the 800-pound browser gorilla has my complete attention should I be
forced to choose.

I can afford to, and will, ignore PNG.

Why? In most cases you can use PNG instead of GIF and create smaller image
files, and therefore faster load times: and there is no browser
compatibility problem in these cases.

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Toby A Inkster

Seems no-one's answered your original question yet...
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html

Also http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml

 

[Neal]

In most cases you can use PNG instead of GIF and create smaller image
files, and therefore faster load times: and there is no browser
compatibility problem in these cases.

In most cases, you can.

Me, I bought a computer which contained, free of any obvious extra charge,
a simple graphics program which creates gifs but not pngs. If the average
user can locate a free png creator, there's a greater likelihood it will
catch on. When I look at my cache in Opera, I find maybe 1-2% of images
are png. I cannot accept that it is "catching on" - that will only happen
if the format is made as familiar to the public as gif has been.

 

[MoonJihad]

[snip]

Seems no-one's answered your original question yet...
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html

Funny how I used the exact same trick this morning

http://moonjihad.lns.kicks-ass.net/temp-shit/mjpn/index.xhtml

Change xhtml to html if you want to see it with IE. It uses PNG-24 and
the background-attachment trick, as well as selectors which are not
supported by IE(div#content > h2:first-child, for example). It also uses
the CSS3 opacity property and :hover on non-link elements, none of which
are supported by any version of IE.

This doesn't really show that IE sucks but mostly that it's old :
http://blogs.lns.kicks-ass.net/moonjihad/dynamic/agecheck.pl

-MoonJihad

 

[Charles Banas]

Me, I bought a computer which contained, free of any obvious extra
charge, a simple graphics program which creates gifs but not pngs. If
the average user can locate a free png creator, there's a greater
likelihood it will catch on.

the Gimp is a free image manipulation package with features on par with
Paint Shop Pro. it is available on Windows and most flavors of Unix.

libpng is a free, open-source implementation of the PNG format. any
program that incorporates that library (which i think is under the LGPL)
has the capability of reading and writing PNG images.

PHP, the popular server-side language can be linked against libGD, which
uses libpng. it also links to ImageMagick, which also supports PNG
images. both libraries can be used to generate PNG images on the fly.

Macromedia's Fireworks (part of their very popular web development
studio and available independently) uses PNG as its native file format
and supports the export of web PNG images. (its native file format uses
extensions to PNG that do not change decoded images, but are much larger
to store the additional image editing data that the software needs to
keep track of, such as histories, snapshots, etc.)

PNG itslef is a royalty-free, patent-free, open standard that anyone is
perfectly free to develop software for. there is a lot of free and
non-free software that i'm not aware of. open-source, proprietary,
whatever. Photoshop has supported PNG images for quite some time.

Internet Explorer's decoder is the only implementation i know of that
doesn't support PNG alpha channels in its latest release. all other
decoders and encoders i've seen and used support the PNG file format in
its entirety.