Re: where can i get IE for os x?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bruce Grubb, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>, Eberhard Lisse <>
    wrote:

    > Interesting is that IE is not IE :)-O
    >
    > It bombs occasionally when trying web sites that require (a modern
    > version of) IE.


    Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
    standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
    x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
    same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
    total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the
    decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
    is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
    down again.

    In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
    share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
    had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
    coffee people.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
    > standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
    > x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
    > same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
    > total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the
    > decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
    > is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
    > down again.
    >
    > In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
    > share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
    > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
    > coffee people.


    These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
    with. It's no use trying to defend the policy you began with (you
    know, the one where you stick your head in the sand and write
    nice mark up that is nice W3C to the nicest strictness with no
    wary eye on IE). When you start to feel some heat about this, you
    turn up the volume on facts about the falling use of IE.

    The Third Reich was very dangerous right till the end and it
    would have been foolish for anyone to go around saying they
    should not worry about it as it was a doomed regime...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Grubb

    Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    > > Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
    > > standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
    > > x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
    > > same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
    > > total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the > > decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
    > > is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
    > > down again.
    > >
    > > In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
    > > share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
    > > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
    > > coffee people.

    >
    > These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
    > with.


    Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
    reasonally
    website maker should be concerned with. Doing otherwise is stupid. The
    reality is bugs change but the standard (ISO/IEC 15445) remains just
    that - the standard. And yes ISO/IEC 15445 is more strick about things
    than vanilla HTML 4.0.1 but if the browser is SNAFUing HTML 4.0.1 it is
    certainly is going to FUBAR the standard.

    And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
    standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.
    , May 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Bruce Grubb

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
    > standard


    You seem to be trying to position yourself as the sole crusader against
    writing "for IE", but has anyone in this thread actually *recommended*
    writing code specifically for IE?

    From what I've read, most people have recommended writing HTML to the
    standards, but then (if needed) adding a few extra kludges to make it
    work in IE (yet only in ways that don't break it in standards-compliant
    browsers!).

    In my experience this is a sensible route to take because:

    a. initially developing for standards compliant browsers
    is far easier than initially developing for IE, which in
    certain cases can cause ones head to bleed; but

    b. although IE's market share is dropping, it is still high
    and most sites will need to cater for it for the foreseeable
    future.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > were still falling and their numbers
    > > > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
    > > > the
    > > > coffee people.

    > >
    > > These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
    > > with.

    >
    > Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
    > reasonally
    > website maker should be concerned with.


    You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
    keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...

    > And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
    > standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.


    Adhering to standards is not the issue. It is about the need for
    most website makers to cater to IE.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 2, 2006
    #5
  6. dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "" <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> were still falling and their numbers
    >>>> had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
    >>>> the
    >>>> coffee people.
    >>> These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
    >>> with.

    >> Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
    >> reasonally
    >> website maker should be concerned with.

    >
    > You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
    > keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...


    Err...just a flesh wound!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, May 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Bruce Grubb

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, dorayme
    <> vouchsafed:

    >> Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something
    >> any reasonally
    >> website maker should be concerned with.

    >
    > You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
    > keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...


    ....And battling with an undersized weapon may indeed be the problem!

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, May 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Bruce Grubb

    Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "" <> wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > were still falling and their numbers
    > > > > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
    > > > > the
    > > > > coffee people.
    > > >
    > > > These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
    > > > with.

    > >
    > > Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
    > > reasonally
    > > website maker should be concerned with.

    >
    > You don't give up do you?


    Nope. Argued with sheff over in sci.archeology about his stupid
    'challenge' regarding if Jesus was a historical person for six months

    > > And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
    > > standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.

    >
    > Adhering to standards is not the issue.


    Yes it is. Adhering to the HTML standards (there are actually four of
    them: 2.0, 3.2, 4.01 and the ISO one) means there is less chance for a
    particular browser to do something royally stupid with the HTML.


    Writing to the standard and avoiding those part of CSS you know are
    going to cause you grief though prevents web "designers" from doing the
    "What a clever coder am I" idiocy that often produces Web pages that
    suck.
    , May 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "" <> wrote:

    > > > And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
    > > > standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.

    > >
    > > Adhering to standards is not the issue.

    >
    > Yes it is.


    No it isn't.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 3, 2006
    #9
  10. Bruce Grubb

    Toby Inkster Guest

    wrote:

    > Yes it is. Adhering to the HTML standards (there are actually four of
    > them: 2.0, 3.2, 4.01 and the ISO one)


    According to yourself, ISO is the only one of them that's actually a
    standard.

    And you forgot about HTML 4.0.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 3, 2006
    #10
    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. craig dicker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    360
    Peter Rilling
    Jul 10, 2005
  2. Sammy
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,198
    Richard Tobin
    May 6, 2005
  3. John Dalberg
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    782
  4. Guy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    182
    Dr John Stockton
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. TheBelangerFamily
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    118
    TheBelangerFamily
    Mar 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page