I can't see my Web site from Internet Explorer because I use LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ian.H wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:38:10 +0000, Mudge wrote:
>
>> Geoff Berrow wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
>>> Blackmoor contained the following:
>>>
>>>>You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
>>>>complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>>> the rest of the world.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE? and then maybe the
>> mozilla browsers and then opera?
>>
>>
>> So, it seems like it mostly just needs to work on IE and then mozilla,
>> netscapte and opera.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>
> Coding "for IE" is like asking a graffiti artist to decorate your 1900s
> classic home.. it's just wrong.
>
> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based than
> anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE.. but just
> because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced upon people)
> doesn't make it right.
>
> IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian

I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority of
the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not the
standards.

Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because they
bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.

Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:

> Ian.H wrote:
>
>>
>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
>> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
>> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>
> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
> of people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions
> losing out because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
>
> I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
> public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
> :-) But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
> performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
> stuff I regularly use.
>
> Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE being
> 'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
> My .02$
> Pjotr


haha -- 90 percent = standard. That is a good way to think about it.

You know, if everything worked just right, w3 would be out of a job.


Lots of .02 cents around here. Wish I could collect.

Yea Yea ideas are .02 cents, but I wish I could collect the .02 cents.

Chung Leong wrote:

> "Pjotr Wedersteers" <x33159@westerterp.com> wrote in message
> news:4115446a$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
>> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
>> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
>> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
> of
>> people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions losing
> out
>> because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
>
> In the case of Mozilla we have a case of a more politically correct
> solution losing out to a more commercially viable one. Kinda like a co-op
> coffeeshop getting crushed by Starbucks.

Yea, fucking commerciality and stupid people ruin everything.

Ian.H wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:07:19 +0200, Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:
>
>> Ian.H wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
>>> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
>>> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>>
>> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
>> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
>> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
>> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
>> of people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions
>> losing out because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
>
>
> I definitely agree that no browser is 100% strictly compliant.. made worse
> IMO with the releases of CSS2 / 3 before some browsers are even properly
> CSS1 compliant it seems at time, but, things must move forwards =)
>
> I write all my code to CSS2 / XHTML1.1 (Strict) standards which I find in
> general, gives me at least a good base to work on.
>
> I find that I can get over most issues with IE rendering things
> differently with some CSS, for example:
>
>
> /* IE */
> div.foo {width:auto; height:300px;}
>
> /* Moz etc */
> html>body div.foo {width:auto; height:auto; min-height:300px;}
>
>
> IE pics and renders the first (IE handles 'height' in some really weird
> fashions) and not the second.. whereas _browsers_ will use the second. End
> of the day, the results look the same in a lot of browsers.
>
> FWIW.. I find Konqueror a real bitch with some code, moreso than IE.
>
>
>> I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
>> public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
>> :-) But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
>> performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
>> stuff I regularly use.
>
>
> Sounds kind of like my scenario here =)
>
> For ages, I ran FreeBSD as my only OS.. but through my teens I DJ'd (over
> about 9 years) and love creating some tracks.. for this, windoze plays a
> much better part for music creation packages than *nix (I'm no pro, it's
> all for fun). Due to this, I pretty much use my win box as a dev box and
> now my FreeBSD box works more as a gateway / firewall and a local dev
> server than anything else. As it has no monitor attached, I also run
> vmware on the win box which has KDE and windowmaker installed for which I
> use it for testing Konqueror and others. Lynx is of course always used too
> (surprising how many people trying CSS for layout / positioning fail to
> have a readable page in a text-only browser =) ).
>
> I like to try and cover as many bases as I can.
>
>
>> Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE
>> being 'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
>> My .02$
>> Pjotr
>
>
> I'd _personally_ say "more popular" than "standard".. but I do understand
> where you're coming from on this.. if you really want to hit a market,
> spiting IE and ignoring it as such, would be more detremental than
> beneficial. I have a _very_ strong dislike to all redmond stuff, but it's
> what's used for the majority day in, day out, so I do try my best too to
> make it work in all situations =)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian

Ian,

What reference or book do you use to make sure that you are CSS2 and XHTML
compliant? Other people?

Brandon Blackmoor wrote:

> Mudge wrote:
>>
>> How the hell do I make sure everything looks ok on
> > Internet Explorer?
>
> You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
> complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
>
> bblackmoor
> 2004-08-07

Standards are really great, but they are only an idea. So when it comes to
building a Web site, fuck em. I'm interested in what is actually the most
workable right now -- not some distant future. Maybe writing the Web site
in a compliant manner, and then doing work arounds for browsers is a good
idea, but lets be real here and focus on the task and not injustices.

Mudge wrote:

> Standards are really great, but they are only an idea. So when it comes to
> building a Web site, fuck em. I'm interested in what is actually the most
> workable right now -- not some distant future. Maybe writing the Web site
> in a compliant manner, and then doing work arounds for browsers is a good
> idea, but lets be real here and focus on the task and not injustices.

I look at it from a different perspective. When I write presentation layer,
I will make sure it's standards compliant and also that it works similar in
most browsers. In most simple enough cases, this is possible - you may have
to tweak your CSS or Javascript a little but you'll find a solution. IE,
Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror/Safari implement enough standards closely enough
to make this possible.

What I find annoying is web "designers" or "developers" that not only ignore
standards but also deny access to 5-10% of their customers/users/visitors
outright; not for the reason that it was impossible or not feasible to
accomplish compliance, but out of pure ignorance. Arguing that it's OK that
your presentation layer is only usable for IE and nothing else is similar
to saying you can/should use VBScript instead of Javascript/ECMAScript. In
many cases, you do have to be clueless and/or trying extremely hard to make
your presentation layer IE-only - using unnecessarily heavy IE-only
JScript-ing and ActiveX controls. Most of the times this happens for not
knowing any better and has nothing to do with browser standards compliance.

I don't know what you call "workable" but, at least for me (and the projects
that I have worked on), a site that does not work 5-10% of the time is
definitely NOT workable.

"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tNjRc.109295$eM2.61184@attbi_s51...
> You know, if everything worked just right, w3 would be out of a job.

Down with the W3C. Software development by decree is un-American.

Mudge wrote:
> Help,
>
> I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
> I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer? Crapo.
>
> Nick

Stop by these web sites, great information!!

http://www.alistapart.com -- a treasure of information for the web designer

http://www.positioniseverything.net -- this one shows you IE errors vs Mozilla correctness. Exellent training!!

>
> Now, after reading all the posts in this thread, I understand the people
> that only code to the standards, but if you only code to the standards
> you can miss a large number of custom features that a browser provides
> that other browsers don't provide.

Well, since nonstandard "features" are pretty much the enemy of simplicity
and security, I can live without 'em.

>>
>> Ian
>
> I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority of
> the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not the
> standards.
>
> Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because they
> bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.

Also looking long term, the more people there are who "don't give a shit
about standards", the longer the long term will be.

Coding to the quirks of a software product rewards the creator of that
product for making it difficult to get our work done. Refusing to do so
penalizes him or her.