Mozilla on AOS4

[gnarly]

mips_proc wrote:
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...

On Windows it sets new standards for bugginess, thats for sure ;-)

IE6's CSS rendering engine is fundamentally b0rken. Float something, give its parent div a background colour and BANG! The background colour appears on top of that div's contents. Yay!  :-?

[gnarly]

Tomas wrote:
Why do you think 95% uses it? Cause of webmasters like YOU! If webmasters followed the standards, then ppl would actually have a reason to change to a "real" browser like mozilla, which follows the standards, unless m$ themself starts following the standards then.

Hmmm... thats not why 95% of people use it. Its because it comes free, pre-installed on the machine that 95% of people buy...

Day in, day out, I make standards compliant websites that work perfectly in IE/Moz and Op7. The degrade gracefully to old/Amiga browsers too -  they just dont get to see the design. Its the way forward...

[gnarly]

mikeymike wrote:
And that's not having a go at the guys who develop IBrowse, it's just a fact.  If one browser has armies of developers behind it, and the other has only a handful, which is more likely to finish first?

A web browser is never finished ;-)

I would love an implementation of Gecko over here on the miggy. I fear that we may need GTK+ or QT first though... (I might be wrong though)

Hey DaveP, didnt you start on a gecko port for OS3.9 a while back? Or was that an April 1st thread? ;-)

[gnarly]

mips_proc wrote:
I test sites... I test with IE and forget it...

Thats not testing in any real sense, but thats another argument altogether :-)

but if as you said it's hard to make a site non-mozilla compatible then why is there an argument? if mozilla supports all these standerds 'perfectly' then whats the problem?

The problem comes when your sites totally ignore the standards!

What REALLY pisses me off is ignorant web designers who STILL put effing stupid browser detect scripting into sites. Its fecking stupid.

Write semantically correct xHTML, written to W3C Standards. Lay it out and style it using CSS2, written to W3C standards. It will work perfectly in Mozilla, Netscape 7, IE 6 and Opera 7. It will work acceptably in IE5.5, Opera 6 and Netscape 6. It will degrady nicely onto older and/or non css supporting browsers. It will be inherently accessible content (a convenient side effect of xHTML/CSS)

ITS THE WAY FORWARD!

[gnarly]

mips_proc wrote:
I dont see any reason to develop to 'standerds' because IE itself is a standerd... and if it works with IE and dosent work well with the others...then thats (at most) 5% who cant view the site...

That argument just doesnt stand up at all.

OK, so you're developing a site for the masses. Lets say you have 2 million visitors in a year. 5% of them cant access it because your site is b0rked in anything other than IE.

THATS 100,000 POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THAT YOU'VE LOST!

[gnarly]

mips_proc wrote:
dosent mean flash is bad...it means they need to update their product to support newer technology..

But you yourself arent adopting newer technology such as xHTML and CSS-P? Hmmm...

[gnarly]

TurboLaban wrote:
My sites will look fine in Mozilla and Opera, and quite nice in IE. The CSS support in IE is really poor...

Actually, thats not entirely fair. IE6Win can do nearly everything that I require it to do perfectly. It has some absolutely infuriating bugs relating to float behaviour, but for the most part it does just fine. If I do run into trouble, a post to CSS-Discuss generally provides a solution.

IE5Mac has one of the best CSS rendering engines going. The advent of Safari means that MS are less likely to want to develop it much further now though.