Vadim, you miss the point entirely. In this case, the developer went out
of their way to write incorrect CSS that is, in effect, "tuned" for one
browser. I doubt the "manager" in question intended to pay for such
shoddy work.
It's also easy to verify CSS code. The W3 maintains an easy web page for
just that purpose. It's been around for years. Any web developer who
doesn't know about and use it or an equivalent at this point is
completely incompetent and would be doing us all a favor by switching
back to their old burger-flipping career.
And no, a standard is not "what is used by people". A standard is an
agreed-upon specification, not common practice. That sort of thinking is
what broke the Web in the first place. We have agreed as legitimate
engineers to use the W3 specs for these things, and if you choose not
to, you're incompetent and don't belong in this business. Period.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Plessky) wrote:
> On Friday 06 July 2001 23:43, Magnus W wrote:
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Plessky) wrote in
> |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> | >| Then maybe they should run their CSS thorough a validator to check
> | >| that they've done everything correctly.
> | >
> | > question is who will pay developer for it.
> |
> | A developer not checking for it would happen to be a very bad developer.
>
> A manager who will pay developer (or outsourcing company) for tuning web site
> to 1% of all users, out of 100%, will be very bad manager.
> Com'on, communist era is over, nobody is working for free.
> You get either money or "respect" (in case of OpenSource community)
>
> |
> | > Real life is that it's not cost effective to "tune" web site to
> |
> | Real life is that it is quite trivial for a good coder to write code that
> | works in every browser -- when the feature is supported in the specific
> | browser.
>
> Yes, I agree with you.
> Question is: who can confirm that it's "good coder" or notify that you are
> going to recruit "bad coder"?
> Besides, think also about budget constrains.
> In reality, manager can't control every tag of HTML code or every JavaScript
> instruction on web site.
>
> |
> | > non-standard browser(s)
> |
> | You have got it backwards. The standard is defined by w3c. IE does not
> | follow those standards. The fact that millions of people are using a
> | broken browser does not justify coding in broken ways.
>
> Standard is what *used by people*.
> If w3c or some other organization defines that "standard car has 6 wheels",
> nobody will rush to adopt car designs to this standard, right?
> Why do you think people should rush to remake products when, by occasion,
> somebody releases new *standard*?
>
> W3C is doing very good job, but it will influence web 3-5 years later.
> look, CSS1 is already 5 years old, but still none browser is compliant to it.
> To get CSS3 and DOM3 to masses, you need another 5-7 years :-((
