the Microsoft fanboy I work with puts the blame straight back onto the spec. His argument is that the spec is so vague in how it's to be implemented that the inconsistencies arise from different browser makers implementing the spec in different ways.
me? I'm not caring too much. I'm into web applications where there is some control over what the client has to use - and I'd rather it be something like Flex and bypass the whole sorry mess. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Zac Spitzer<zac.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > by my every other the same comment, I meant that they have > collobrated using standards for their design, and as a result > they tend to work rather the same. > > in my experience, it's only IE where there are lots of works arounds required > > webkit talk to gecko developers and vice versa, they usually > take into consideration what other browsers do when fixing > problems, thus they have become a lot more standard these > days > > when your doing javascript in IE, doesn't it feel like they didn't want > to make the experience enjoyable? > > z > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Mark Mandel<mark.man...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Steve Onnis <st...@cfcentral.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> Zac >>> >>> I have to disagree with your "every other mainstream browsers works the >>> same" comment. Safari renders certain things different between MAC and PC, >>> and same goes for FireFox. The of course there is Opera and now Google >>> Chrome handles certain things differently, and that doesn’t include the >>> Linux flavoured browsers either. >> >> Actually... I dunno about that statement >> >> Safari == Google Chrome >> >> For all intensive purposes, as they are both webkit based. >> >> Most Linux flavoured browsers - are generally Webkit based as well, Epiphany >> is Mozilla based (if it's not using the Webkit backend). >> >> As far as I have seen on the differences between OS's, is more font's than >> anything else, which I don't see as a huge issue. >> >> So really, apart from IE, everything is either WebKit, or Mozilla backends. >> Not actually that many options. >> >> Mark >> >>> >>> I guess the argument is based around website development verses >>> application >>> development, both of which have very different requirements for >>> functionality. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Zac Spitzer [mailto:zac.spit...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, 17 July 2009 5:37 PM >>> To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com >>> Subject: [cfaussie] Re: OT : Friday discussion "To browse or not to >>> browse" >>> >>> >>> IE is pure evil, even IE8 is still pure evil, because every other >>> mainstream >>> browers works the same... IE is just plain quirky, even in 8 >>> >>> IE6 is and old lame duck an simply wasn't designed to handle heavy >>> complex javascript >>> and things like the standard event model don't work ( think jquery live >>> change ) >>> or transparency issues >>> >>> The web would be a much cooler place if we didn't waste so much time on >>> IE6 >>> issues, and we'd all be more productive >>> >>> there was a nice story about Hillary Cinton being asked about the US gov >>> and >>> IE6 >>> and the response from one of the guys was nothing was free. >>> >>> It's mainly senior managers who have allowed the persistant IE6 bit rot, >>> citing >>> the cost of moving, which is laughable for any developers who has worked >>> with >>> modern browsers, because once you escape the IE6 hell, things become >>> easier >>> quicker and more predictable >>> >>> There's always IE tab for FF >>> >>> this debate reminds me of the whole climate change denialists problem >>> >>> z >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Chad Renando<chad.rena...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > I cringe when I hear the word "just". As a production manager, I hear a >>> lot >>> > of "just" related to IE6 specific "tweaks" (it will 'just' take me an >>> > hour >>> > or two), which cumulate to thousands of dollars per year and significant >>> > schedule pain. Yes, in a perfect world IE6 would be managed through >>> perfect >>> > CSS and if/then statements. But our world of plug ins, widgets, >>> third-party >>> > ad-ons and integration with legacy systems is far from perfect. I >>> > require >>> > an element of predictability and profitability that IE6 in particular >>> > threatens. >>> > >>> > It takes a significant amount of time to perform a full user test on >>> > each >>> > browser, and accommodating the likes of Safari, IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, FF3, >>> and >>> > Opera can be a 2-day exercise, not too mention if there are issues that >>> > require changes and re-testing. It would be nice to eliminate just one >>> > of >>> > the "options" we as a society feel are necessary. >>> > >>> > If I have an option to kill something, IE6 is top of my list. >>> > >>> > Chad >>> > who still lurks on Cold Fusion forums like the bad smell from the lunch >>> your >>> > 6th grade kid forgot in their bag over school holidays >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Steve Onnis <st...@cfcentral.com.au> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Today I thought I would log into my twitter account after 7 months mind >>> >> you and have a look around again thinking "maybe" I can put it to some >>> use >>> >> (jury is still out on that one), but while I was in there I noticed in >>> the >>> >> right hand column under "Trending topics" I noticed a topic names "IE6 >>> Must >>> >> die". Being human and curious by nature I thought I would check it out >>> and >>> >> noticed some interesting comments like "IE6 must die for the web to >>> >> move >>> on" >>> >> and "I spent days trying to get sites looking vaguely similar in IE6 to >>> >> Firefox. IE IS EVIL! ". >>> >> >>> >> I guess my question is, should IE6 die? Is IE really evil? I hear a lot >>> of >>> >> talk about how Microsoft browsers don't adhere to W3C standards and >>> >> developing for IE is such a pain and FireFox is a much better browser. >>> How >>> >> much time do you really spend checking cross browser compatibility? Is >>> it >>> >> really worth it? In my experience, I would say not a great deal. If >>> >> you >>> >> stick to the standards I have found that you end up just tweaking the >>> >> CSS >>> a >>> >> little and most of if is because of positioning issues. That said, >>> >> this >>> >> sort of issue is not only related to the IE browsers or IE6 >>> >> specifically. >>> >> MAC in general are a pain because of the way they render fonts and have >>> >> there own style of "classic" fonts like Arial and so on. Issues like >>> >> that >>> >> cause problems with padding and spacing, especially if you are looking >>> for a >>> >> pixel perfect layout. At least with IE browsers you can use the >>> >> IF/ELSE >>> >> technique to include specific CSS files to target specific versions of >>> the >>> >> browser. >>> >> >>> >> There are CSS hacks for everything now, and honestly I don't think you >>> >> need them as long as you stick to simple standards code. A lot can be >>> >> achieved if you do this without having to sacrifice functionality or >>> >> compatibility for the plethora of browsers available. >>> >> >>> >> In the end, every browser, new and old has their quirks and to point >>> >> the >>> >> finger and at one browser is unfair if not unjust. >>> >> >>> >> Steve >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Zac Spitzer - >>> http://zacster.blogspot.com >>> +61 405 847 168 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> E: mark.man...@gmail.com >> T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic >> W: www.compoundtheory.com >> >> >> > >> > > > > -- > Zac Spitzer - > http://zacster.blogspot.com > +61 405 847 168 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
