On 23 Jun 2001 03:11:55 GMT, Carlfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:23:08 -0400, DeMoN_LaG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> somehow managed to type:
>>
>>You must not use Mozilla. It visibly renders the same speed as IE on my
>>system. Faster on some pages, actually. Usually ones with complex
>>tables throughout them, and the browser is much more responsive while
>>doing the rendering
>>
>
>The numbers disagree, see the remaining posts in this thread.
<rant>
It may be a few hundred milliseconds slower, but at least Mozilla fucking
renders things properly.
I redesigned the front-end of my blog today. I figured that I'd test it in
IE5.5, Mozilla and lynx, and tell everyone else to get stuffed.
Supposedly, that meant I could remove all the table code from my site, and
replace it with styled DIV tags.
Aside from one problem that turned out to be me misinterpreting the CSS
specification[1], Mozilla displayed the resulting page perfectly.
Internet Explorer 5.5, on the other hand:
1) Didn't understand position: fixed at all.
2) Couldn't draw within the lines - text was drawn over the
borders of the surrounding divs.
3) Borders on either side of the div randomly vanish.
Any of these bugs would be a milestone-stopper in Mozilla, but they
managed to make it to a release version of IE5.5, and look even worse in
the beta of IE6.
(for some sample IE6 beta screenshots, look at
http://www.pastiche.org/~cmiller/s1.jpg
http://www.pastiche.org/~cmiller/s2.jpg )
JTK, I'm going to un-killfile you because I really want to hear an honest
answer to the following question:
"Is it worth it to gain half a second in page rendering time, or about
ten dollars worth of memory usage, if your renderer can't reliably draw
basic things like margins, padding, or borders."
I'm waiting for a justification.
</rant>
Charles Miller
[1] The relationships of floating blocks to the margins of the blocks
rendered beside them. IMHO, the standard does it wrong.
