Paul Farnell
New Member
I'm happy to debate this with you but it would help if you had something constructive to say.
ph3n0m said:1. why should i code for mozilla/firefox when the majority of end users still use IE. If I code my css for Mozilla/Firefox I know that I will have to make corrections in IE and dare I say it, make a few IE specific hacks
ph3n0m said:2. Would u consider a site that is viewable in multiple browsers - somewhat standards compliant? Even though not all browsers (across different platforms) confirm to what is considered "standard"?
ph3n0m said:3. If we are encouraged to use "web standards", why is there is so much work involved in getting right across the board when developing?
ph3n0m said:Whilst I am aware of web standards, etc, blah, blah - it doesnt necessarily mean I will use them. I use tables on some sites, and not strictly limited to tabular data (as recommended). I just know from experience that, across the board - tables are more then likely able to display a page how I need to.
I would say until there is a dramatic increase, the Firefox is still going to lag behind IE, no matter what the "experts" say. That is, unless there is a visible and sudden increase in the number of Firefox users, IE will still be number oneevilhomer said:Firefox is becoming more prevelant so will start to make up more of your client base.
I wait with baited breath, but I aint holding itevilhomer said:IE7 will be much more standards compliant then IE6.
and yet IE is still number 1 by a significant marginevilhomer said:The corrections you have to make to IE is bacause IE is wrong.
and yet as far as we are lead to believe, most if not all current IE hacks will have to be either removed or redone when IE7 comes outevilhomer said:coding to standards also means that you will not have to go back and change things at a later date.
you said it..... "if the standards are implemented correctly"evilhomer said:It's only a lot of work the first couple of times, soon enough you get the hang of it and it becomes second nature. Developing with web standards is actually much easier then without (if the standards are implemented correctly in the browser).
well I for one can create a cross browser/platform website that works in most browsers (old and new) and it wouldnt necessarily be standards compliantfrankp said:You see, I don't view it as coding for mozilla/firefox. I view it as coding for standards compliant browsers.
What's the difference?
but that progress is slowfrankp said:As far as IE is concerned, IE has made positive steps in supporting standards, and I while the differences between IE and other browsers is annoying, I think progress is being made.
but that doesnt necessarily mean it will work cross browser/platformfrankp said:As for what I consider a web standard design? One that validates.
frankp said:And accessibility and findability?
Frankp, maybe it is a weak arguement, but you are right you will never convince me - as it stands I deliver what my clients want and they are quite happy with me.frankp said:Having a site which is not very accessible because you prefer to design using tables is, in my opinion, a rather weak argument for designing less accessible sites.
Anyway, it doesn't sound like we'll convince you, but if for no other reason I recommend web standards to increase findability and therefore your value to your clients.
But feel free to stick with tables too, coz then my designs will outperform yours...
rsynnott said:http://www.gaire.com/, in relation to this thing. He's fixed it now, but originally I had a little script to fix it.
BlogSpot's RSS is also mildly non-standard.
ph3n0m said:and yet as far as we are lead to believe, most if not all current IE hacks will have to be either removed or redone when IE7 comes out
blacknight said:You'll have to have both the old hacks and the new ones, as people generally don't upgrade immediately. I might - you might, other users of this forum might, but I doubt if my mother would even know how to ..