On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 22:16, James Sparenberg wrote: > On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 22:13, rikona wrote: > > Hello Eric, > > > > Sunday, October 12, 2003, 9:40:03 PM, you wrote: > > > > EH> That's the silly part: we're not really even asking for > > EH> development. We just want them to get rid of the rejection of non > > EH> IE browsers. It would mean *less* work and less code if they > > EH> didn't put it in to begin with. > > > > I think it would be more work. They'd have to test it with other > > browsers, and since different ones DO act differently, they'd have to > > develop code to work in all of them. It seems to be easier (= cheaper) > > to just put in a check and ask users to use IE. > > > > Many times one can view the code from a page and see where to go > > anyway, but when you do, it doesn't work right. We need to let them > > know they should code for other browsers. > > or even better... get them to write w3c compliant code. (and if on our > site you find a page that isn't let me know .... please.) Once I got > that written in, every browser I test .... works right. (I'm not doing > anything too fancy but the point is hopefully valid.) > > James
HTML isn't the difficulty, IMHO -- it's extensions like JavaScript and to some extent application engines which embed their own languages in (for instance, I spend entirely too much time these days with tclhttpd). There's no w3c.org validator for JavaScript or VBScript :-) -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com