[News] Internet Explorer 7 Still Against Web Standards

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Roy Schestowitz, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. Roy Schestowitz, Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roy Schestowitz

    dfloss Guest

    Give me a break. It's pretty darn good; you are splitting hairs.
     
    dfloss, Aug 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 54% Woot-woot! That's better than half!

    Obviously you haven't been frustrated making a modern website that
    doesn't break IE....
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Dude, that's over a year old.

    What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
    creating valid XHTML and CSS.

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.newscloud.com

    Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
    bothered to conform to standards.
     
    Erik Funkenbusch, Aug 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Roy Schestowitz

    Paul Watt Guest

    Does make you think about the support CSS3 is going to have when it rears
    its head. Border-radius anyone?

    --
    Cheers

    Paul
    le singe est dans l'arbre
    http://www.paulwatt.info
     
    Paul Watt, Aug 8, 2006
    #5
  6. By the way, see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager
    of IE)

    http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
     
    Erik Funkenbusch, Aug 10, 2006
    #6
  7. Roy Schestowitz

    Hadron Quark Guest

    Always nice when you see a reasoned contribution from someone actually
    involved in a products development.

    --
     
    Hadron Quark, Aug 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Roy Schestowitz

    Andy Mabbett Guest

    Andy Mabbett, Aug 11, 2006
    #8
  9. Roy Schestowitz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    You've never worked with a big corporate, have you? And M$oft is one
    of the absolute worst for "What's wrong with US corporate culture and
    its stuck in the '60s mentality"

    Whoever provides content to those blogs is _very_ far from who
    specifies or implements the blogs. This is sad, but it's certainly not
    the blog author's fault. Flagging this Pavlovian little link to the
    validator makes you look like the sort of sad little teenager who
    _only_ knows how to do that.
     
    Andy Dingley, Aug 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
    XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.
     
    Erik Funkenbusch, Aug 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Erik Funkenbusch, Aug 11, 2006
    #11
  12. Bogus? No, HTML and XHTML are not the same. If you are writing with an
    HTML doctype, use HTML syntax; if a XHTML doctype, use XHTML syntax.
    They are not the same, therefore these are not bogus errors.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Aug 11, 2006
    #12
  13. Roy Schestowitz

    dorayme Guest

    ....amazing what the typing hands can produce...
     
    dorayme, Aug 11, 2006
    #13
  14. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    <>
    wrote
    All right, dumb question...why is XHTML even an issue here? The
    given link is HTML 4.0 Transitional. Unless the author is
    actually referring to one of the test pages implied in

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php

    which has some very strange numbers...how do they determine
    that IE6 is 80% compliant with HTML4.01? Ditto for

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php

    which among other things says that IE6 is 75% compliant with the A tag.

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_html.php

    still has this problem, even at this level of detail --
    how is IE6 75% compliant with A's core attributes?

    I don't want to say it's a bad effort, really -- it gives some good
    info as to the pitfalls in HTML/XHTML development. But I can't say
    it makes a lot of sense in spots. Still, there might be some
    limitations that preclude actual hard numbers.

    The flyovers are a nice touch. :) Links back to the
    specification look like they might be useful in case of
    disputes; however, the entire webpage decided to do

    a { text-decoration: none; }
    a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }

    or its equivalent for some reason, making the links hard
    to spot without playing "flyover".
     
    The Ghost In The Machine, Aug 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Roy Schestowitz

    GreyCloud Guest

    Aren't HTML and XHTML different?
     
    GreyCloud, Aug 12, 2006
    #15
  16. The given link (the blog link above) is HTML 4.0 Traditional, but
    written with XHTML syntax. <shrug>

    <meta name="GENERATOR"
    content="CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60209.2598)" />

    Maybe we need to blame this Generator? The above link now has 105
    errors:
    Can't say. Most of the thread is not in alt.html.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Aug 12, 2006
    #16
  17. Erik, what are "XHTML-style" tags? Do you mean something like this? with

    <foo />

    The W3C's validator is not in error (it almost never is); those tags are
    not legal in HTML. Jukka has the scoop:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html#why
     
    Nikita the Spider, Aug 12, 2006
    #17
  18. Roy Schestowitz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Why is that a bug? That page's code is crap. Empty elements (meta &
    link) are closed XML-style, which is just plain wrong in a HTML 4.0
    document. The ID values are also XML-style (begin with "_") which is
    invalid HTML.
     
    Andy Dingley, Aug 14, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertisements

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 (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.