Table within a <div>

[kchayka]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that we were urged to show no mercy
to IE7, but to treat it as if it were a real WWW browser.

LOL

<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/10/12/480242.aspx>
I don't agree with their approach, but no matter.

As far as rendering goes, IE7 (beta 2) is not without problems, but is
miles ahead of IE6. The UI is still ghastly, though, so I can't say how
many people will actually want to use it.

 

[John Bokma]

As someone else pointed out, conditional comments are indeed a hack,

No: a hack is relying on a flaw or side effect in a parser that might be
not present in a future version.

A conditional comment is a well documented addition. You can already
create a conditional comment for version 7.1 of Internet Explorer. You
can't do that with a hack.

BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I have
found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and applies
the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful.

With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you had to
wait for a beta to test it.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote:

[...]

With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you
had to wait for a beta to test it.

Your point is well taken. However, the fact that there's one
notorious browser-like object that repeatedly fails to behave like a
WWW browser leads me to express the opinion that any attempt to make
that thing seem like one, has every right to be called a "hack".
Even when that's a vendor-supported "hack". I would much prefer the
vendor to supply a specification-conforming implementation (and
upgrade paths for all of their users [1]), than to supply ways of
circumventing their implementation's misbehaviours.

[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.

 

[John Bokma]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, John Bokma wrote:

[...]

With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some
CSS is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you
had to wait for a beta to test it.

Your point is well taken. However, the fact that there's one
notorious browser-like object that repeatedly fails to behave like a
WWW browser leads me to express the opinion that any attempt to make
that thing seem like one, has every right to be called a "hack".

All browsers that are as old as IE 6 suffer from similar problems.

[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.

For those there are plenty of alternatives. Lets also not forget that MS
is one (if not the only one) that supports outdated OSes as long as they
do. By the time Vista is released XP is over 5 years old.

Yes, MS did quite some things wrong, but other browsers have flaws too or
keep flaws in existence. Ditto for the holy "standards organization" W3C.

It's funny how a "flawed" company like MS did create a nice way to do
things conditionally, in an early stage admitting that things could change
drastically. IIRC, at that time CSS was draft, and unclear.

 

[Johannes Koch]

With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7.

Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There is
no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would be
much more useful.

xpost and f'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

[1] not only those who purchase the most recent OS versions, I mean.

For those there are plenty of alternatives.

Oh, one doesn't have to be on an *old* version of Windows to
appreciate the benefits of a real WWW browser!

Lets also not forget that MS is one (if not the only one) that
supports outdated OSes as long as they do. By the time Vista is
released XP is over 5 years old.

You seem to be tacitly assuming the truth of the testimony that MSIE
is an operating system component. I would rather have a WWW browser,
leaving the OS component to be used for applying the vendor's own
fixes.

Yes, MS did quite some things wrong, but other browsers have flaws
too or keep flaws in existence. Ditto for the holy "standards
organization" W3C.

Oh, sure. But deliberate violation of a mandatory requirement of an
IETF standards-track protocol (RFC2616) can hardly be laid at the door
of the W3C alone - even if the RFC in question was authored with W3C
participation.

It's funny how a "flawed" company like MS did create a nice way to
do things conditionally, in an early stage admitting that things
could change drastically. IIRC, at that time CSS was draft, and
unclear.

The CSS specification mandates clients to ignore CSS syntax which they
don't understand. But no: MSIE had to know better, and overrule that
mandatory requirement, and screw up when doing it. Things have only
changed superficially since then.

I suppose it's nice, in a perverse sort of way, that they've granted
us a non-standard feature to defeat their non-standard features. I
still prefer a specification-conforming WWW-compatible browser myself,
but as an author I need to be aware of users out there who wouldn't
recognise a specification-conforming browser if it bit them in the
bottom, sadly.

Not that the Mozilla-family, or Opera, or Lynx or whatever, are
entirely free of bugs, but at least one can have reasonable confidence
that their developers have some commitment to remedying those bugs
when they are identified, instead of (as appears to be the MS policy)
replacing known bugs with unknown bugs, and requiring those who desire
specification-conforming behaviour to research obscure workarounds.

sigh

 

[John Bokma]

You seem to be tacitly assuming the truth of the testimony that MSIE
is an operating system component. I would rather have a WWW browser,
leaving the OS component to be used for applying the vendor's own
fixes.

I consider making an application work on an outdated OS supporting that
OS, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, sure. But deliberate violation of a mandatory requirement of an
IETF standards-track protocol (RFC2616) can hardly be laid at the door
of the W3C alone - even if the RFC in question was authored with W3C
participation.

RFC is *not* a standard. Several RFCs have been "violated" by several
companies, IIRC Apache has still a fix for a fu by Netscape on board.

The CSS specification mandates clients to ignore CSS syntax which they
don't understand. But no: MSIE had to know better, and overrule that
mandatory requirement, and screw up when doing it. Things have only
changed superficially since then.

How does a conditional comment "screw" up? MS foresaw issues, issues
that now require to exploit parser flaws for other browsers.

I suppose it's nice, in a perverse sort of way, that they've granted
us a non-standard

There we go again: CSS is a recommendation, *not* a standard.

feature to defeat their non-standard features. I
still prefer a specification-conforming WWW-compatible browser myself,

Then download and install Amaya and join the happy few who have done so
already :-D.

but as an author I need to be aware of users out there who wouldn't
recognise a specification-conforming browser if it bit them in the
bottom, sadly.

standard, now specification: get it right: w3c recommendation, or w3c
draft, or maybe even RFC depending on what exactly you're talking about.

Not that the Mozilla-family, or Opera, or Lynx or whatever, are
entirely free of bugs, but at least one can have reasonable confidence
that their developers have some commitment to remedying those bugs
when they are identified, instead of (as appears to be the MS policy)
replacing known bugs with unknown bugs,

That's normal in software development: when you fix one bug, you often
introduce new code or change existing code, and hence new bugs might pop
up. The code base of an application rarely gets smaller. I am sure you
can find reintroduced bugs in all browsers you named, or bugs that went,
and introduced new ones.

Opera is core business for the company that produces it.

Lynx, Mozilla, whatever are Open Source. The latter, Mozilla & Co, still
suffer from the gigantic shitty code Netscape produced some time ago.
Have a look at the history format for example (or better: don't).

and requiring those who desire
specification-conforming behaviour to research obscure workarounds.

Even if MS dropped dead today your problem wouldn't go. The reason why
things slowly seem to settle is that IMO there is hardly any progress in
the web development.

 

[John Bokma]

Unfortunately, you make some _HTML_ not being processed by IE. There
is no such thing like conditional comments in CSS where IMHO it would
be much more useful.

True. But it's way better compared to relying on exploits in parsers that
are discovered. The cc's are documented by the *maker* of the browser.
Exploits can stop working with a minor update.

Worse, if such an exploit is very popular, a browser developer might feel
obliged to keep such an exploit working, using some kind of automatic
detection system, which complicates the parser.

xpost and f'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

ignored.

 

[kchayka]

No: a hack is relying on a flaw or side effect in a parser that might be
not present in a future version.

I don't see it that way. To me, hacks are anything extra to accommodate
browser bugs or other deficiencies. Some hacks do rely on parsing
errors, but not all. IE's zoom property, for example, is such a hack.

With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you had to
wait for a beta to test it.

No, I had to wait for the beta in either case. What MS says IE7 will or
won't do is irrelevant. It needed testing with my particular CSS to
determine if any work-arounds were required to begin with. That first
public beta was a mess. If MS hadn't cleaned it up... well, I'm just
glad I don't have to worry about it much any more.

The *html hack has worked marvelously for applying work-arounds to
IE5-6, and leaving IE7 alone. That is exactly what I want now. Why would
I want to pollute the html with conditional comments, when I'd still
have to have polluted CSS for other IE kludges, or hacks for other
browsers? Sounds like more work to me.

 

[kchayka]

Worse, if such an exploit is very popular, a browser developer might feel
obliged to keep such an exploit working,

Hmmm... IE is the only browser still in widespread use that has any
amount of "popular" exploits, and MS has felt obliged to do away with
them all.

The only browser that really needs hacks with any regularity any more is
IE5-6. Hacks or kludges for other browsers are few and far between,
especially since browser makers have all gotten on the standards
bandwagon. This is A Good Thing.

 

[Johannes Koch]

True. But it's way better compared to relying on exploits in parsers that
are discovered. The cc's are documented by the *maker* of the browser.

Then why didn't the MS people invent and document CCs for CSS?

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does,

Better than Firefox?

 

[Andreas Prilop]

Newsgroups: alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets


ignored.

Bye

 

[kchayka]

Better than Firefox?

Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.

 

[GreyWyvern]

And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Don't be silly, Luigi. IE7 is better than IE6, nothing more.

I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the groin
comes to mind...

Grey

 

[dorayme]

Are you dogmatic?

Luigi! You are back! With a quintessential Luigism!

 

[Tony]

And lo, kchayka didst speak in
alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:


I can think of a few things it's better than. A swift kick to the
groin comes to mind...

Hmm -

I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Hmm -

I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...

I see that you do not explain why.

 

[TechnoHippie]

I'm trying to remember which was more painful. The last time I was
kicked in the groin, or the last time I tried to use IE7...

It shouldn't take that long to remember ... I've replaced my IE icon with a
skull and crossbones. I have to leave it installed on my computer for the
occasional jerk-ass .gov site I have to access and because my roommates
have all their passwords stored in IE. I'll take a kick to the groin any
day.

Judy

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Luigi! You are back! With a quintessential Luigism!

How are you?
Everything okay on Mars?