> On September 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM Freelance Traveller > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 9/21/13 2:44 PM, Freelance Traveller wrote: > >> I'd just tend to write > >> to the standard, > >And what would that standard be? It's almost as though there are two: > >the w3c-compliant world, and the IE world. > > Less so now than formerly, I think; recent versions - IE7 and later, > really - have done a far better job of compliance with the W3C standard > than earlier versions. And that largely seems to have been because of > developer pressure. Yes, there are still - and probably always will be - > areas where IE diverges from W3C, but I think that, more and more, it's > for legacy support rather than future lock-in. > > -- > Jeff Zeitlin, Editor Well, I only study and test the standards compliance of the the most recent UA versions in preparation for their much wider use. I also have the advantage of not having to satisfy clients and/or management. Beginning with IE9 more and more standards compliance has been included. But IE11, in my analysis, is more up-to-date with W3C standards(un-prefixed) than the other modern UAs available right now. Webkit requires far too many prefixes and Moz is playing catchup is some areas and is not addressing non-support in others. Chrome also fell behind but has recently begun to catch up too. All of this is just 'IMHO' stuff. Eric ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
