the opposite. It shows that you understand that some compromises need to be
made to accomplish some things. And that's more professional than telling
people to fuck themselves if they don't have the right browser.
I will say that while playing with the voice hack, I found it actually broke
some things in IE on the Mac vs IE on windows and IE 5.5 vs IE6 on Windows.
I can't remember the details, but I think in at least one case, the browser
saw the hack and used the hack version code, but it actually rendered better
using the non-hack code.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:36 PM
Subject: RE: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
> I think we are in a transitional.
>
> Its funny, you are looking only at the blog, if you go to my site
> (http://www.shayna.com), you will note that it is ENTIRELY standards
based,
> no hacks and I do tell people that if it looks funny, they need to get a
> standards based browser.
>
> In the meantime, in order to work with what we have, compromises need to
be
> made right now, but If I code 70-80% of my site to standards now I am
doing
> a heck of a lot more to raise the bar than most people out there.
>
> Even IE's box model isn't so bad if you use a proper doctype. For good or
> bad, most browsers have standardized on using the doctype to decide what
> type of rendering they will do (standards or quirks). However, most people
> either aren't aware of this or don't care and the default for all the
> browsers is quirks mode.
>
> If you guys think my credibility is an issue by using a css hack then I
will
> gladly rework those items to be standards compliant. You are my audience
> and my peers and I want to make sure I do the right thing.
>
> _____
>
> From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
>
>
> Hi Sandy:
>
> Couple of points...
>
> First off, I agree whole-heartedly that coding for standards is in every
> coder/programmer's best interests. As long as we collectively continue to
> jump through hoops to get our sites to render in non-standards compliant
> browsers, we offer the browser manufacturers no incentives to adhere to
> standards themselves. We've already established a precedent that we'll
> write conditional after conditional and redirection after redirection to
> accomodate them.
>
> It definitely is liberating to be able to say, "I code to an accepted
> standard. If your browser doesn't view it properly, it's the browser's
> fault". Of course, not everybody can say that. Many are bound to make
> their sites accessible to as many browsers as possible and that
> unfortunately means having to continue the hoops-jumping-thru.
>
> Now I would like to vent about CSS...I've tried lately to move away from
the
> table-based layouts in favor of css based layouts (which you seem to be a
> staunch advocate of). But doesn't CSS, at this point in time, suffer from
> the same problems of having to do "browser-sniffing"? Even on your
> blog...you used the rounded box corners courtesy of cssvault. Well,
doesn't
> that style have an explicit 'condition' (for lack of a better term) to
> address a specific browser? My latest attempt at a table-less layout is
at
> http://130.13.124.245:6699/comix/titles.cfm I built it while testing in
IE
> 5.5/6 (yes, yes, i know...). It looks...horribly bad in some other
> browsers. I understand this to be due to IE's improper rendering of the
box
> model.
>
> So one of the more prominent browsers out there (really, the most
prominent
> browser) misinterprets the padding/margins on a div/span. So once again,
we
> (coders/programmers) are forced to employ 'hacks' to accomodate different
> browsers.
>
> Bottom line is that I'm all for adhering to standards. I'm all for
writing
> code that is faster/more efficient/more portable. But the one big
question
> that I guess lingers in my mind is... "are we there yet?"
>
> After a few unsuccessful attempts at table-less layouts, I say no.
Curious
> as to what opinions others have (in spite of what practices they may
> employ).
>
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sandy Clark
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:00 PM
> Subject: RE: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
>
> While its frustrating that some of the items promoted in the standards
are
> not in any browser, blame the browser makers, not the standards
> organizations.
>
> I'm a tyrant on this subject (ask my co-workers), but being able to
write
> HTML and CSS that complies with some sort of standard, makes my life
> easier.
> I'm not having to write a hack for every browser out there and having to
> re-write when a new browser comes on the market.
>
> If we all promote and use web standards, and use browsers which follow
the
> standards, then there will be incentives for the browser makers to
> implemnet
> the standards in their web sites. If we don't and use what's out there,
> then where is the incentive?
>
> _____
>
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: css, xhtml, standards, bandersnatch, etc...
>
> So with the semi-OT talk of standards over on cf-talk, it coincides with
> something I've been thinking and some frustrations I've been having.
>
> Standards don't exist.
>
> They are a frumious Bandersnatch. We can write the words and they can
even
> have some kind of meaning to people, but they either don't seem to have
> the
> same meaning to everyone or they simply only exist as words and will
never
> be seen in reality.
>
> Dave's quote was excellent and worth repeating I think:
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress
> depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
>
> A current CSS frustration:
>
> display: table-column-group
>
> I really need that for a project I'm working on. I need the ability to
> control the display of a column in a table. Yes I can kludge around it,
> but
> it's not pretty. So what browsers support this CSS2 declaration that was
> ratified over 5 years ago? None. It's a standard that doesn't exist.
It's
> my
> frumious Bandersnatch.
>
> -Kevin
>
> _____
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
