I've got plenty of class. And I didn't attack you personally.
I did make a comment that I wouldn't want to follow in your coding footsteps, based on your assertion that unclosed tables are perfectly fine. > I truly hope I never have to maintain your codebase. (Although I am > currently fixing one probably quite like it). I am just finishing up fixing some 140,000 htm files that were written and debugged in IE. The scripters never bothered to close TD, TR, TABLE or FONT tags (I won't but mention the </font color=black> attempts by a more conscientious coder.) In some cases, there were a nested set of 7 tables without </TD></TR></TABLE> sets to close them off. Worked fine in IE, but how about trying to display this stuff in other standards/browsers. WML? On a Rocket E-book? Now, try moving from <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> to something a little more strict. Ain't gonna happen. As for developing in IE vs Netscape, I would rather the browser let me know when something is wrong. So I can fix it. It is the exact same reason I use error checking when compiling C or running perl. I'm not saying that leaving a table open here and there is grounds for the death penalty, but I think the GOAL should be code that will pass through a decent code scrubber. (And just for clarity, I BROWSE the Internet with IE. Cause it is more forgiving on those sites that don't bother with QA.) Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/16/02 05:21PM >>> We're not talking about bad code. We're talking about forgotten table tags. We're talking about not fully scoping a variable. We're talking about the fact that when bad code does get written, you're a whole lot better off if you have internet explorer than when you have netscape. If you had to choose between riding in a car that was based on the fact that everything was always perfect in a perfect world then netscape works quite nicely. The fact is, IE takes into account the fact that code doesn't always get written like the rules say. It figures out the right most of the time and leaves you with options so your code is not left broken when multiple people who work on the application make a mistake here or there then it's left to somebody else to fix. You're right, writing things properly is always a good thing. Being able to account and correct mistakes rapidly is also. Now, let's attack me personally because I have these views. Yes, go ahead and attack the person instead of the views themselves. Show me how much class you've got. - Matt Small -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:07 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes) I certainly hope he is defending Netscape for requiring decent code. What you are talking about is bad coding. Pure and simple. And laziness. Just because IE currently allows you to code so poorly, and the page sometimes renders the way you want, doesn't mean it is a good idea. "Pushing code out" is, IMHO, no excuse for bad coding. Quite the opposite, in fact. Good code takes less time than bad code. To write, to debug, to maintain. I truly hope I never have to maintain your codebase. (Although I am currently fixing one probably quite like it). Shivering at the thought, Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/16/02 05:01PM >>> > Think about what you just said... Umm... no... I spent the afternoon debugging my pages because netscape isn't as forgiving as ie. I don't feel like thinking anymore. I guess that makes me a bad programmer though, and unprofessional. I use ie only here on the intranet because I don't have to spend time searching through the piles of code that I have looking for that forgotten table tag and its nice features that I can get to work the first time. If you love netscape, good for you. I don't, I know a LOT of people who don't, and it's an inferior product for that reason alone. No, I haven't read the w3 standardization for css or html or javascript or whatever. I have to spend my time pushing code out the door for production purposes. I don't even use stuff that is ie-only. I have a 1998 O'Reilly javascript book that I use and everything in it works on ie except where it says it won't. > I keep screaming for a <makeWebSiteHere/> tag too, but nobody > listens....sigh. Oh, gosh, you're right. I wish I had a tag that does that also, but instead, I'll use ie, which saves me a lot more tedious tag-searching work than ns ever did. So, you're right. Sometimes I forget to put </html> at the end of my page. Sometimes I forget to fully qualify my scopes when writing javascript and my css doesn't work. These are the things that I use that make netscape break into pieces. You're defending this? Matt Small -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:24 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew R. Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:27 PM Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes) > You're right, this is a can of worms, but...Really, I am asking that > Steve Case drop the Netscape browser altogether. I'm not exactly sure > which standards that IE supports or doesn't support, or how NS compares > to it. Think about what you just said... > But the fact is that IE it's extremely forgiving, feature-rich, > and just a great browser altogether, while NS is just a headache for > designers. Sure it's a headache, and so are all those old Canadian drivers who come down here every winter. Doesn't mean they are going away, nor do I want them to. They have money... > To tell you the truth, I don't know how they keep producing > the NS browser. I't doesn't seems to me that it makes any money for the > company. AOL 8.0 is going to use the Gecko rendering engine. I'm sure that is saving them quite a bit in licensing fees and MS headaches. > The fact is that there are standards and that anything which > makes the code easier to program and maintain should be included in the > standard. I keep screaming for a <makeWebSiteHere/> tag too, but nobody listens....sigh. jon ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
