R
rossz
rf said:
If all browsers followed the specs, stopped second guessing, and ignored
errors, a whole lot of so-called professional web designers would have
to look for honest work.
If all browsers followed the specs, stopped second guessing, and ignored
errors, a whole lot of so-called professional web designers would have
to look for honest work.
G
Guest
Arne said:
As Toby Inkster wrote below it is normal to write "500 m". So the guys from
wc3, who made the "web standards" are making chaos, not me.
(Almost) every computer software uses pixels. If user want to use another
type of unit- it is recalculated. But the original data is still measured in
pixels.
MSIE owns the market. So it makes the standard. Everyone should follow them.
Just like Opera does.
If 90% of ppl will drive 120 mph, then the law should be changed to make 120
mph a limit. Law should suit ppl.
Regards,
Talthen
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, rossz quothed:
If that happens, I'm becoming an apprentice gigolo.
If that happens, I'm becoming an apprentice gigolo.
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, (e-mail address removed) quothed:
If 99%+ of the people want to hang the 2 Jews who live in Saudi Arabia,
should the law allow them to do so?
If 99%+ of the people want to hang the 2 Jews who live in Saudi Arabia,
should the law allow them to do so?
M
Marc
Toby said:
I'll agree with you about L being the correct abbreviation for liters,
not li, but do you have any evidence to assert your other claims?
I know an incredibly highly qualified mathematician who would disagree
with you certainly on the metric front, regarding 500m, 50km and 100°C
(there should have been a degrees symbol between the 0 and the C before
but I couldn't find it).
Marc
M
Michael Winter
On 28/09/2005 09:23, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
[snip]
Omitting a space is 'chaos'? As someone else remarked: this is a joke,
right?
[snip]
At some point, graphical software will involve pixels. However, the only
time they are important is just before rendering. The units used in the
interim could be anything as long as they can be transformed.
In any case, your remarks are irrelevant. Length values require units
for non-zero values. Live with it. Even IE6 will ignore your nonsense
when rendering in 'Standards' mode.
[snip]
IE implements standards. It just does it in an ad hoc, when it suits us,
manner.
That you would think that any one browser should try to take control
seems to imply that you want the chaos you disdained earlier. The
'browser wars' were caused by vendors trying to assert themselves on the
Web, and it only led to problems and polarisation.
Whether you can see it or not, standards are useful. If all browsers
implemented the various standards completely, then Web development would
be simpler (you'd have guaranteed behaviour) and users wouldn't be
exposed to the current lingering problems (why should a user have to
care what browser they use, and where).
Opera is a compliant browser when presented with decent markup. When
given junk, it assumes that it was written for IE and lowers itself to
that level. The only area in which it aims to accommodate IE is its
object model, where it can do what it pleases. It still implements the
W3C DOM and ECMAScript properly.
[snip]
The law should protect people, and people are stupid. Making it reflect
their desires is a ludicrous idea.
Mike
[snip]
Omitting a space is 'chaos'? As someone else remarked: this is a joke,
right?
[snip]
At some point, graphical software will involve pixels. However, the only
time they are important is just before rendering. The units used in the
interim could be anything as long as they can be transformed.
In any case, your remarks are irrelevant. Length values require units
for non-zero values. Live with it. Even IE6 will ignore your nonsense
when rendering in 'Standards' mode.
[snip]
IE implements standards. It just does it in an ad hoc, when it suits us,
manner.
That you would think that any one browser should try to take control
seems to imply that you want the chaos you disdained earlier. The
'browser wars' were caused by vendors trying to assert themselves on the
Web, and it only led to problems and polarisation.
Whether you can see it or not, standards are useful. If all browsers
implemented the various standards completely, then Web development would
be simpler (you'd have guaranteed behaviour) and users wouldn't be
exposed to the current lingering problems (why should a user have to
care what browser they use, and where).
Opera is a compliant browser when presented with decent markup. When
given junk, it assumes that it was written for IE and lowers itself to
that level. The only area in which it aims to accommodate IE is its
object model, where it can do what it pleases. It still implements the
W3C DOM and ECMAScript properly.
[snip]
The law should protect people, and people are stupid. Making it reflect
their desires is a ludicrous idea.
Mike
G
Guest
Neredbojias said:
Perhaps, if they did something terrible againt the law...
Regards,
Talthen
J
Jonathan N. Little
Ah no, most visual elements in Windows Apps like dialogs done in say VB
are in twips and points not pixels....
J
Jonathan N. Little
<snip>
also remember this is a property value, not a description, the property
like the values are one word entities: it's 'background-color' not
'background color', right? This is a 'script' to be evaluated by a
program, your browser, not a human.
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, (e-mail address removed) quothed:
My point was that the law isn't a popularity contest. Prospective rules
may eventually become law based on the popular appeal of their predicted
social effect, but edicts of current whim are just elements of tyranny.
My point was that the law isn't a popularity contest. Prospective rules
may eventually become law based on the popular appeal of their predicted
social effect, but edicts of current whim are just elements of tyranny.
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, Michael Winter quothed:
It seems to have problems with certain height settings established with
w3c-compliant css, various ECMAScript interpretations, decimal
percentages including related font-sizes, and the dynamic refresh needed
for some "re-" positioning. No browser is perfect, but the one that
satisfies me most is Mozilla, which, btw, does seem to add annoying
white space to the page bottom.
It seems to have problems with certain height settings established with
w3c-compliant css, various ECMAScript interpretations, decimal
percentages including related font-sizes, and the dynamic refresh needed
for some "re-" positioning. No browser is perfect, but the one that
satisfies me most is Mozilla, which, btw, does seem to add annoying
white space to the page bottom.
M
Michael Winter
On 28/09/2005 18:29, Neredbojias wrote:
[snip]
I can't say I've witnessed those specific problems, but I have seen my
own from time to time. Any examples you might have to hand would be
enlightening.
Of course, and I never meant to imply otherwise. However, to liken Opera
to IE is insulting.
[snip]
Mike
[snip]
I can't say I've witnessed those specific problems, but I have seen my
own from time to time. Any examples you might have to hand would be
enlightening.
Of course, and I never meant to imply otherwise. However, to liken Opera
to IE is insulting.
[snip]
Mike
T
Toby Inkster
Marc said:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html (#15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI (SI Writing Style, point 5)
http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-4.html (All the examples)
http://www.ukma.org.uk/why/system.htm (All the examples)
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/numbers.htm (All the examples)
T
Toby Inkster
Neredbojias said:
Bah! Mozilla can't even get CSS counters right, which have been working in
Opera since version 5.1.
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/hierarchical_lists
Sucking Mozillas!
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, Michael Winter quothed:
I haven't specifically documented them but the page I've been diddling
with is still in the offing so give me a few days. I do remember that
"font-size:155%;" is smaller in Opera than other browsers. Also, the
(bottom) margin on an image in a floated div seems to have no effect at
page bottom whereas it does in Moz and IE.
Agreed. And Opera was a wonderful graphic-resizing routine that beats
all others by a mile.
I haven't specifically documented them but the page I've been diddling
with is still in the offing so give me a few days. I do remember that
"font-size:155%;" is smaller in Opera than other browsers. Also, the
(bottom) margin on an image in a floated div seems to have no effect at
page bottom whereas it does in Moz and IE.
Agreed. And Opera was a wonderful graphic-resizing routine that beats
all others by a mile.
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:
He he, I had to open the page in 3 browsers just to see what you were
talking about. Anyway, wouldn't it have been a little more practical
for Opera to get the simple stuff right before tackling something so
obscure and esoteric?
(Seriously, why hierarchical lists and not tenths of a percent?)
Anyway, as for hierarchical lists vs. accurate font sizes, the popular
vote goes one way: Mozilla rules!
He he, I had to open the page in 3 browsers just to see what you were
talking about. Anyway, wouldn't it have been a little more practical
for Opera to get the simple stuff right before tackling something so
obscure and esoteric?
(Seriously, why hierarchical lists and not tenths of a percent?)
Anyway, as for hierarchical lists vs. accurate font sizes, the popular
vote goes one way: Mozilla rules!
M
Mark Parnell
Yes, he is. He even said so, just after the bit you quoted:
Admittedly "should" there should be "must".
The part of the specs in question is
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#parsing-errors for anyone who is
interested.
M
Mark Parnell
Looks like you'll need to update that page. It displays correctly in FF
1.5beta: http://clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/lists.png [24kb]
Not any more.
G
Guest
6Mark Parnell said:
Looks like you'll need to update that page. It displays correctly in FF
1.5beta: http://clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/lists.png [24kb]
Not any more.
Maybe just this one FF, but the rest of Moziillas suck ;p
Here's what I have tested (all info from About):
===MSIE add-ons===
MyIE2 0.9.27.68
Avant Browser 10.0 build 027
Maxthon 1.3.3 build 50
===sucking Mozillas===
K-Meleon/0.9 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5)
Gecko/20041220 K-Meleon/0.9)
Mozilla Firebird 0.7 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; PL; rv:1.5)
Gecko/20031007 Firebird/0.7)
Netscape 8.0.3.3 based on Firefox
Firefox 1.0
Mozilla 1.7.11 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.11)
Gecko/20050728)
===MSIE===
MsIE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2...
===and the only winner is===
Opera 7.54u2, Build 3929
P.S. What does it mean that K-Meleon is "lighweight"? Its setup=4,76 MB,
installed=13,7 MB
And opera 7.54's setup= 3,65 MB, installed= 6,7 MB
Regards,
Talthen
T
Toby Inkster
Mark said:
Looks like you'll need to update that page. It displays correctly in FF
1.5beta: http://clarkecomputers.com.au/usenet/lists.png [24kb]
Not any more.
Bah! Now I'll have to make a page demonstrating:
<textarea rows=4 cols=40 style="visibility:hidden">
a
b
c
d
e
f
</textarea>