It is interesting to note that M$ has recently been at pains to point out that it's implementation has the best standards compliance of any browser.
I was both shocked and unbelieving that Mozilla didn't do better until I heard that the Mozilla project had not yet implemented the XSLT W3C standard for XML but M$ had. So I hope that the Mozilla crew is going to do that sometime soon. Other than that from what I have struck: -The DOM is different for EVERY browser there appears to be no standard that anyone adheres to. (that's the model around which javascript is built) -Paths to files can be platform dependent. Although "/" is the defined standard anybody that does development on only M$ systems will never notice/ -IE is less fussy about closing tags etc -Netscape 4.x is unable to render very much in the way of CSS etc. So please be careful about what you slag M$ off for. You may be embarassed if the person is a well informed M$oftie Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > Thank you Kerry! Well spoken!! > > However I fear that the (overpaid IMHO) web designer will say "the > cost will be humangous for making it work with 90% of customers and the > cost for the remaining 10% will be 3*humangous". And I guess the person > commissioning the web site simply doesn't understand that it mightn't > work on other computers, afterall it looks fine for him/her, and there > aren't other computers are there? Sad. > > > A robust browser should be able to deal with the imperfections > > of human web masters. > > Except it's not usually a human factor, but the use of tools which > deliberately put out shite which doesn't work. > > > I remember when I first started coding html and I'd get blank pages in netscape,> >but exactly what I wanted in IE, simple things like a forgotten end frame tag... > > tidy will fix this for you. It's trivial to run it. You know what happens > when you compile something you can't even get syntactially correct? The > compiler tells you where to go. Same with web pages. Except in the latter > case it's trivial to correct and/or debug. Any online validator should do > the same. This will also tell you where you've tried to be a smart-arse > outwitting the standard, i.e. where to fix your code. > > Web designers who can't run tidy are overpaid IMHO. My own observation > is that things fail in areas where the web designer has put more emphasis > on serving ego than functionality. > > > The point is that I could write a basic site in a few hours, but could > > spend another day trying to get it to work in Opera, NeoPlanet, > > I would be interested in a lesson explaining precisely what doesn't > work with every browser, and how that affects the usability of a web > site beyond the trivial. > > Volker -- Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch New Zealand phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895 Fax 3642222 -- Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch New Zealand phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895 Fax 3642222
